“Teleporting quantum information is now a practical reality,” asserts Deutsche Telekom. The firm’s T‑Labs used commercially available Qunnect hardware to demo quantum teleportation over 30km of live, commercial Berlin fiber, running alongside classical internet traffic. In an email to Tom’s Hardware, Deutsche Telekom’s PR folks said that Cisco also ran the same hardware and demo process to connect data centers in NYC.
Yep
The thing is if it’s entangled, why is there a fiber cable?
If it’s teleportation, why is there a cable?
However what actually makes consciousness in a brain is (hypothetically, technically) microtubules forming a very tiny cable inside of which quantum superposition is able to be maintained while we are conscious. When even brief quantum entanglement used to be insanely hard anywhere and an environment like the brain considered impossible.
Like, it’s hard to tell what really happened from OPs article. But there should be much better articles explaining it, and this could actually end up being crazy important. Like, 20-30 years from now this might be how we finally get a real AI.
Quick edit:
Like, rather than one straight line to send data, if this can maintain even just entanglement in a simple fiber optic cable…
Then that’s huge.
If they just stretched a string between two containment chambers that each have an entangled particle, then what purpose is the string even serving?
My non scientific intuitive guess is that the cable is there to reliably create the entanglement conditions.
Question as I’m ignorant about what you are talking about, what are the real implications of what you say in real everyday life? I mean this is physics but what kind of technology could be developed with it?
Faster then light travel for information. Hyper efficient computing which can do infinite calculations at once (which is why its a threat to our password infrastructure).
If you take it far enough into speculation actual teleportation that could circumvent the teleportclone dilemma. But that one is more science fiction not proven impossible, the above 2 are proven theoretically possible.
According to that information the human brain could be a quantum radio transceiver?
I would call that an observer of some kind.
I actually have some ideas as I spend a rather unhealthy amount of freetime thinking of quantum mechanics. While not at all being a proper scientist but i have come to perceive the concept of a blended multiverse.
When you are in a room alone, there are tons of things you could be doing. You become slightly dis-entangled from the world. You only experience one slice, the thing you know you are doing, but actually exists in superposition from the perspective of the rest of the world. At the same time the rest of the world exists in a state of superposition towards you. When you break your isolation and interact with the world in any way your experienced slice of reality becomes entangled to a slice of reality that is the rest of the world.
But the entanglement is a spectrum. Even alone in a room you still know that you are on earth and that gravity exists. You are entangled to you awareness so whatever infinite amount of things you could do, flying is not one of them. Except in a slice reality where its normal for gravity to not exists inside that room. But you, nor the rest of the world can interact with that specific slice. Our consciousness has evolved to perceive reality as if it makes sense with our primitive capacity, we can not perceive reality outside of what we all entangled consciousness networks within a context system understand as shared coherent reality.
When a friend group splits up each member could lead many different lives, all of those exist in superposition . But when you get back together to talk about old times in that moment of that conversation most of those different version of their lives are unified and entangled into one slice again. Then when they start talking about the rest of their lives you entangle to that one slice of their multiverse lives.
Anyway this is oversimplified of my actual ideas and again i am not an accomplished scientist. I do not take myself too serious about things these but i love conceptualising it.
Any source on your claim about consciousness? Sounds very speculative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction
Thanks, that’s an interesting read. Still stand by my opinion that your statement is overly confident in explaining consciousness.
Penrose published a book on it in 1989.
For literal decades the only thing that ruled it out was the ability for quantum entanglement in the brain. Less than 2 years ago we proved not only was that possible, but quantum super position could be sustained for as long as we’re awake.
It’s a pretty safe time to be confident, even without accounting for Penrose being the literal smartest person on the planet.
Like, I’m not big on “appeals to authority” but if Sir Roger Penrose spends 37 years saying something is true, and just continually gets proven more right over the decades…
It’s not as far reaching as you seem to believe.
Like, gravity is just a theory too, shit is harder than people realize it is to prove.
This is only a proposed theory, it’s very far from accepted fact.
Which is why I said hypothetically…
Although up until a year ago the very idea that quantum entanglement could happen in the brain was treated as a joke for like 30 years and that’s why the larger theory was instantly dismissed…
Which is why I added the “technically” as well.
If we’re being technical even gravity is just a theory. But it’s not like being deny the existence of gravity…
I think you may have misused the word “hypothetically” then.
I was taught Orch OR theory at university about 17 years ago.
Instantly dismissed by who? It’s a new theory, there will always be detractors and critics of new theories (see, for example: oxygen theory of combustion). That’s very different from being “instantly dismissed”.
I 100% did
Then you were also taught that there was no way the brain could maintain sustained quantum entanglement at the same time.
I mean, frame of reference…
You said you learned it 17 years ago, that’s not very “new”.
But compared to any other science, all of psychology is incredibly “new”.
I’m multitasking bro, this ain’t that deep
No. I’ve no idea what could have possibly brought you to that conclusion.
Please don’t try to tell me what brought you to that conclusion while multitasking. For that matter, please don’t try to tell me at all.
Luckily it’s easy to find research from that period:
https://journals.aps.org/pre/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevE.80.021912
I rember that time as well, although it seems my memory is better than yours, despite you being waaaaaaay more confident.
If you have further questions tho, ask someone else. Good luck finding someone better equiped to talk about this stuff tho. Every days another burnt bridge, right?
One paper claiming that the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness does not mean that the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.
I’m not sure why you think my memory is in any way relevant.
There’s a significant journey from being published in a paper to being taught in classes. I was taught Orch OR somewhere between 2008 and 2010 so there’s no reason to think memory comes into it.