Correct. The speed of light is the speed limit of information in the universe.
Entanglement is neat because it allows us to transmit a quantum superposition to two places at once.
It’s like an identical pair of Shrodinger’s Cats. You can’t know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box, but you do know that the other box will show the same result as yours regardless of where it ends up.
The new thing they’ve figured out in this article is how to entangle qubits between separate quantum computers, essentially creating a single Shrodingers’ Cat that exists in two computers simultaneously which allows them to do the quantum equivalent of parallel processing.
I don’t disagree, but I think the bigger problem is journalists who misunderstand the topic and erroneously imply that “quantum” can enable faster-than-light or undetectable communication.
“quantum teleportation” is the correct technical term. The problem is articles being written by people who don’t realize this is a technical term that needs explanation.
So not FTL right?
Correct. The speed of light is the speed limit of information in the universe.
Entanglement is neat because it allows us to transmit a quantum superposition to two places at once.
It’s like an identical pair of Shrodinger’s Cats. You can’t know if the cat is alive or dead until you open the box, but you do know that the other box will show the same result as yours regardless of where it ends up.
The new thing they’ve figured out in this article is how to entangle qubits between separate quantum computers, essentially creating a single Shrodingers’ Cat that exists in two computers simultaneously which allows them to do the quantum equivalent of parallel processing.
Articles/titles need to stop using the word ‘teleportation’ -_- it has very different implications
I don’t disagree, but I think the bigger problem is journalists who misunderstand the topic and erroneously imply that “quantum” can enable faster-than-light or undetectable communication.
“quantum teleportation” is the correct technical term. The problem is articles being written by people who don’t realize this is a technical term that needs explanation.
It is, but should not be in the title regardless. Just say entanglement.
I assume not, but primarily because I would expect the actual scientists and/or Oxford to make a bigger deal out of that if they had achieved it