“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?
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?
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.