Re: Duplicates are Selves

From: scerir (scerir@libero.it)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 16:18:38 MDT

  • Next message: BillK: "Re: Bad ideas from Microsoft et al"

      On Friday, April 04, 2003 10:16 AM
      Lee wrote:
    > So, I'll just go back to my former claim: if you believe physics
    > with all your heart, and so don't suppose that the particular atoms
    > that you are composed of have anything to do with who you are, then
    > you won't mind teleporting, because the pattern of atoms will be
    > the same after as before.

    The point, imo, is 'fidelity'.

    In 1993 [1] Bennett et al. defined the concept of quantum
    teleportation, so. " [...] we show how Alice can divide the
    full information encoded in |phi> into two parts, one purely
    classical and the other purely non-classical, and send them
    to Bob through two different channels. Having received
    these two transmissions, Bob can construct an accurate replica
    of |phi>. Of course Alice's original |phi> is destroyed
    in the process, as it must be to obey the no-cloning
    theorem. We call the process we are about to describe
    teleportation, a term of science-fiction meaning to make
    a person or object disappear while an exact replica
    appears somewhere else." [2],[3]

    Now it can be shown [4] that, due to the no-cloning
    theorem, we can get a *local* quatum trasfer or a
    *remote* quantum teleportation of one quantum
    state, with a fidelity f > 2/3, just if we destroy
    the original. It can be shown, also, that without
    destroying the original, we can realize a *local*
    quantum cloning, or a *remote* quantum faxing,
    of several copies (from 2 to n), but in the
    fidelity range of 1/2 < f < 2/3.

    Thus, due to the linearity of quantum algebra,
    and due to Heisenberg's relations, it seems very
    difficult to reach, locally or remotely, by deterministic
    or even by probabilistic means, a perfect xoxing,
    that is to say to have a perfect copy of a quantum state,
    or a perfect copy of an atom.

    Btw, it seems possible to improve the fidelity factor
    coupling entanglements (between systems) with
    relativistic movements (of these systems). But for
    now it is just fiction.

    In Zeilinger's opinion within few years we could
    teleport molecules. Polzik et al. already realized
    entanglements between caesium gas clouds containing
    (each) 10^12 atoms. But due to the (low) fidelity factor
    it seems (to me) that in the future we could realize
    an efficient polymorphism, faxing molecules up and down,
    to the outer space.

    [1] Phys. Rev. Lett., 70, 1895, (1993)

    [2] Asher Peres, How the no-cloning theorem got its name,
    http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205076

    [3] THe no-cloning theorem, by Wootters and Zurek,
    1992, states that no information can be cloned in
    the case of a number of (quantum) states equal or
    greater than 3. The proof goes, essentially, this way.
    Let us have a cloning (xoxing) machine with an initial
    state |X_initial>, a vacuum state |vacuum>, a photon
    with a polarization which is a linear superposition
    like |ver>+|hor>. Due to linearity of quantum algebra,
    it is not possible to get something like
         |X_initial>|vacuum>(|ver>+|hor>) =
       = |X_after>(|ver>+|hor>)(|ver>+|hor>)

    [4] Cerf et al in Phys. Rev. Lett., 85, 1754, (2000);
    Gisin, in Phys. Lett., A210, 157, (1996).



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 08 2003 - 16:26:44 MDT