FLAGGED: I read the paper - article is completely wrong
esquiremag.ph
esquiremag.ph
Isn't that a violation of the No-communication theorem?
I take a red ball and a green ball and put them into identical looking boxes. I hand one to you and send you to Mars. Then I open my box and see a red ball. I instantly know that you have a green ball in your box, even though it would take 20 minutes for light to travel between Mars and Earth.
The difference is that in the quantum world, each ball is in a superposition of red and green. Once I open my box and collapse the superposition to red, your ball is green, and I know information about your ball that we didn't know when we were together (since at the time we were together, the balls were in superposition).
Exactly. This is just bad journalism.
In particular, this can not be used to download information faster than light as the article describe 4 or 5 times.
More details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation
Checks paper - a single mention of NASA in the acknowledgments for a research fellowship.
> Imagine downloading the entire library of Marvel films in a snap.
It doesn't mean that at all. It means the latency (ping) is less (but not zero), but it would still take the same time to transfer the data.
Something seems really off anyway, if this really was possible then we need to throw out a lot of stuff. The paper doesn't even seem to make the claim of faster-than-light information exchange [1].
PRX QUANTUM is a brand new journal, perhaps their review process is not so great.
[1] https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/pdf/10.1103/PRXQuantum.1...
Link to the actual paper. https://journals.aps.org/prxquantum/abstract/10.1103/PRXQuan...
The good part of HN is that if the article is interesting you can probably get an expert here to add more insight, and if the article is wrong you can probably get an expert here to explain the errors.
Seen no claim of ftl communication
This is bs