Breakthrough as Oxford scientists say they've achieved teleportation
Scientists have achieved a massive breakthrough in teleportation - an achievement that could soon lead to a quantum computing revolution.
Scientists in the UK claim to have teleported data between two quantum computers
- Thread starter Gingerbread Demon
- Start date
It seems they reached this breakthrough when someone reversed the polarity by mistake. 
I'd like my data to be on a MUCH higher reliability level than 86%
I want at least 9 Level of 9's in terms of reliability.
86% isn't good enough when it comes to data integrity.
Thankfully. the quantum no-cloning theorem means that people can't duplicate themselves.
I suspect it will be a long time before such a technique can be applied to a human body with its roughly seven octillion (7x10^27 or seven billion billion billion) atoms, Does the so-called soul get transferred as well? I don't know, but I imagine making the process painless might be tricky.
I suspect it will be a long time before such a technique can be applied to a human body with its roughly seven octillion (7x10^27 or seven billion billion billion) atoms, Does the so-called soul get transferred as well? I don't know, but I imagine making the process painless might be tricky.
Why would 86% be considered successful?
It isn't. The article states that they need to achieve well over 99% accuracy to exceed the fault-tolerance threshold required for reliable quantum computing.
Quantum error correction - Wikipedia
It isn't. The article states that they need to achieve well over 99% accuracy to exceed the fault-tolerance threshold required for reliable quantum computing.
Quantum error correction - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
OK I'll have to read it again. I thought they considered the teleport a success though.
They have proof of concept. They just need to refine it.
Fair enough
I assume the main problem is maintaining unitarity - that is, reversibility of gate operation. However, it's yet another rabbit hole I'm not diving down. I'll let them work on it.
Of course, it's also possible that quantum mechanics doesn't require strict unitarity at all.
www.quantamagazine.org
Of course, it's also possible that quantum mechanics doesn't require strict unitarity at all.
Physicists Rewrite a Quantum Rule That Clashes With Our Universe
The past and the future are tightly linked in conventional quantum mechanics. Perhaps too tightly. A tweak to the theory could let quantum possibilities increase as space expands.
www.quantamagazine.org
Last edited:
Meanwhile, Microsoft are claiming to have create topological qubits again:
Microsoft Majorana 1 quantum chip is “a breakthrough in quantum computing”
I don't know if this is yet another claim that will be debunked and evaporate.
Microsoft Majorana 1 quantum chip is “a breakthrough in quantum computing”
I don't know if this is yet another claim that will be debunked and evaporate.
Last edited:
Could it just be hype?
I assume it's been tested or they'll just look silly.
I'd like transatlantic planes to be able to stay MUCH longer in the air than just for 852 feet. That recent Wright attempt perhaps sparks peoples' imaginations, but it simply isn't good enough, I want at least 5500 km in terms of distance.
(Granted, due to the nature of quantum mechanics it's probably much harder to get those reliability levels up, but it still seems like an important breakthrough.)
Did you just mix your units? You talked about time while using distance.
Again, Time vs Distance.
But in terms of usability within the realm of Computer Science, you need that level of reliability to trust the system to be implemented in the real world
Otherwise, it will remain a toy within the R&D labs.
It makes a great "First Step", but that's all it is.
Meanwhile, I'll just carry on travelling through spacetime at the speed of light.
Not sure, it may also have been a sloppy way of expressing myself. Perhaps I should have said
I'd like transatlantic planes to be able to stay a MUCH longer distance in the air than just 852 feet.
Anyway, I think the point, while correct, is moot. I am not writing a scientific paper here, expressed myself colloquially, and I assume people know what I meant. Which is that it may still represent an important advance, even if it isn't nearly good enough yet for use. And I'll be curious to see how quickly incremental advances will come (or not).
