SahwaFeb 19

Quantum teleportation demonstrated over existing fiber networks — Deutsche Telekom’s T‑Labs used commercially available Qunnect hardware for the demo, claims 90% average accuracy

https://reddthat.com/post/60550628

Quantum teleportation demonstrated over existing fiber networks — Deutsche Telekom’s T‑Labs used commercially available Qunnect hardware for the demo, claims 90% average accuracy - Reddthat

>“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.

Show threadgivesomefucksFeb 19

The firm’s T‑Labs used commercially available Qunnect hardware to demo quantum teleportation over 30km of live

Bit disingenuous to talk about teleporting things along a fiber line…

Also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how quantum entanglement works…

But it’s actually pretty huge that they’re able to do this.

Show threadSchool_LunchFeb 19
As someone who also doesn’t fully understand quantum entanglement… is it that when two particles are entangled and far apart, when we observe them they will always be in the same state? Is there any way to manipulate that state? If so, it seems like it would be pretty straight forward to use it for faster than light communications.
Show threadgivesomefucksFeb 19

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.

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.

Show threadrahFeb 19

what actually makes consciousness in a brain is (hypothetically, technically) microtubules

This is only a proposed theory, it’s very far from accepted fact.

Show threadgivesomefucksFeb 19

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…

Show threadrah

Which is why I said hypothetically…

I think you may have misused the word “hypothetically” then.

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

I was taught Orch OR theory at university about 17 years ago.

that’s why the larger theory was instantly dismissed

Instantly dismissed by who? It’s a new theory, there will always be detractors and critics of new theories. That’s very different from being “instantly dismissed”.

Feb 19 at 3:40pmWeb
Show threadgivesomefucksFeb 19

I think you may have misused the word “hypothetically” then

I 100% did

I was taught Orch OR theory at university about 17 years ago

Then you were also taught that there was no way the brain could maintain sustained quantum entanglement

It’s a new theory

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

Show threadrahFeb 19

Then you were also taught that there was no way the brain could maintain sustained quantum entanglement

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.

Show threadgivesomefucksFeb 19

No. I’ve no idea what could have possibly brought you to that conclusion

Luckily it’s easy to find research from that period:

This model requires that the tubulin is able to switch between alternative conformational states in a coherent manner, and that this process be rapid on the physiological time scale. Here, the biological feasibility of the Orch OR proposal is examined in light of recent experimental studies on microtubule assembly and dynamics. It is shown that the tubulins do not possess essential properties required for the Orch OR proposal, as originally proposed, to hold. Further, we consider also recent progress in the understanding of the long-lived coherent motions in biological systems, a feature critical to Orch OR, and show that no reformation of the proposal based on known physical paradigms could lead to quantum computing within microtubules. Hence, the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.

journals.aps.org/pre/…/PhysRevE.80.021912

I rember that time as well, although it seems my memory is better than yours, despite you being waaaaaaay more confident.

Show threadrahFeb 19

Hence, the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness.

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.

it seems my memory is better than yours

I’m not sure why you think my memory is in any way relevant.

Published 13 August, 2009

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.