Talk:Quantum teleportation

WikiProject Physics (Rated C-class, High-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative name

"Thus, despite the provocative name, it is best thought of as a kind of communication, rather than a kind of transportation."

It's a pretty terrible name, then. Has anyone proposed or used an alternative name that better connotes communication? If so, please put it in the intro to the article in bold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.62.7 (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Teleportation is a kind-of transportation. Although one can think of it as a kind-of communication, it is also, defacto, a kind of transportation. The article, as written, may be placing the empahsis incorrectly. The name is appropriate. User:Linas (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Mistake

From what I see, the gate that has to be applied by the receiver in the case where both measurements are 1 is wrong. It should really be

0 1


-1 0

= Z*X, which is what the circuit diagram indicates: First quantum NOT (X), then phase shift (Z).

If you go back up, you will find that the state in the respective case is "wrong" - it has a global phase -1, and should really be

-\beta|0> + \alpha|1>

I have derived the equations myself and got this. 213.142.168.211 (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Daniel

I just checked the formulas in the article, and they appear correct to me; I don't see the mistake that you describe. User:Linas (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no actual "Atom Teleportation"

The texts reads: "although single atoms have been teleported". That is plainly WRONG. If you read the papers used as reference and source, then it still is INFORMATION that is transported, not the actual atoms. Indeed it's not teleportation (of information) of atoms, but 'from atom to atom'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.161.14 (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have corrected the error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.161.14 (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm removing the frollowing text from the lead, because it is wrong, and is causing readers to miunderstand (see some of the comments and essays above).

Quantum teleportation is unrelated to the kind of teleportation commonly used in fiction, as it does not transport the system itself, does not function instantaneously, and does not concern rearranging particles to copy the form of an object. Thus, despite the provocative name, it is best thought of as a kind of communication, rather than a kind of transportation.

First of all, it is related, because it does transport the system itself! This follows from axiomatizations of QM, which basically state that the universe consists of bits and qubits; and there are two ways of moving a qubit: putting it on a horse and riding it somewhere, or quantum-teleporting it. Teleportation is a kind-of transport, this follows from the no-cloning/no-deleting theorems. True, it does not not function super-luminally (the no-communication theorem). It does concern re-arranging particles, although so far, we've only been able to re-arrange only two or three, and not even an entire atom, yet. Yes, it can be thought of as a kind-of communication, but it is also quite correct to think of it as a kind-of transportation. User:Linas (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I also added a five-paragraph non-technical summary, which perhaps will help prevent mistakes like the above in the future. If there are other things that need to be explained in a non-technical way, give me a ping. User:Linas (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not really correct to say that the universe is composed of bits and qubits. I understand the sentiment, but if you want to idealize the universe as a computer, then really the qubits are fundamental and bits are emergent, corresponding to qubits that are decohered. The reference to the no-communication theorem is also not quite right; qubits can carry information (in fact one bit per qubit) but the theorem refers instead to the impossibility of using entanglement for instantaneous communication. I'll do some rewriting of this soon, but am happy to discuss more here first if anyone wants. 24.61.8.127 (talk) 04:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC) (this last change I accidentally made w/o being signed in. Here is my real signature. Aram.harrow (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC))

The explanation is missing references and it sounds like original research, with too fancy expressions. Mstuomel (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I have some concerns about it too, particularly the claim that qubits cannot encode bits (at all), which seems to contradict most reliable sources on quantum computing. I note that the editor who added the text (Linas) is/was blocked indefinitely, although on behavioral issues [1]. The text was added in violation of WP:BLOCKEVASION although that's the least of the concerns here. JMP EAX (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
If one wants to write something "non-technical" the bullet list from [2] appears a better source. JMP EAX (talk) 09:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)