German physicists working on quantum interface between light and atoms
By Laura June 
posted June 6th 2010 9:28AM
posted June 6th 2010 9:28AM
Physicists at Johannes Gutenberg University in Germany are developing something which they call the Mainz interface, and which could eventually lead to a quantum computer -- a whole new way of communicating information. For now, though the Mainz interface is seeking to use laser light traveling through a tapered glass fiber, trapping cesium atoms at the thin center. This center of the fiber is actually thinner than the wavelength of light, meaning that it protrudes into the space surrounding the fiber, "coupling" with the atoms trapped there. Sounds pretty complicated, right? Well, it is, but the researchers are moving along toward the goal of quantum computing. We'll keep you updated on their progress.
computers faster than the speed of light,, hope they don't use windows on it
@MSM
Technically a laser is light, so it wouldn't be "faster than light".
@MSM
why's that? light speed windows 9 would be a blessing to all
@MSM
bsod will create a tear in the fabric of the universe...
@Midnitte Indeed the paradox that they work faster than the speed of light is resolved by consideration that they also run on windows, hence limiting their speed to
@MSM So why don't you upgrade from Windows 95 to something more up to date?? Not that software has anything to do with science...
@MSM I don't think it would matter what you were running at the speed of light...even Vista would boot in a matter of milliseconds.
@DrScope
If that's the case, I wonder what all these turds running on OS 9 have to say for an excuse.
@MSM
Source?: http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/13579.php
@MSM
If your complaining that Windows is slow, surely you'd want it to be run by a PC "faster than the speed of light"?!
Finally. Those two have been wanting to have a proper talk for ages.
Since time is measured by the speed of light..( light years) and this atoms are faster than the speed of light, time travel might soon be a reality... Just a thought
@eldolive and an incorrect one, as atoms aren't defined by a constant speed in the way that photons in light are and their speed is not considered to be able to pass that of light.
@eldolive No, just no. That is a common misconception. A light-year, also light year or lightyear, (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (i.e. 1016 metres or 10 petametres). As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.[1]
@eldolive
You don't seem to understand than nothing can be faster than the speed of light.
@eldolive Lightyears is a measure of distance not time.
@eldolive
And to crush even your last standing thought. Time isn't measured by the speed of light either. It's defined by a number of cycles a caesium atom radiates.
@eldolive This "faster than the speed of light" bit seems to be pretty common in the uninformed, there's a German folk singer/esoteric freak who dedicated part of a book of him on horribly misrepresenting the concept of quantum tunneling, pretty similar to what's going on in the article here. What nobody seems to take into account is that the actual catch in the whole FTL thingy is that _information_ can not be transmitted faster than at the speed of light – which is why these tunneling "tricks" also don't work the way some "scientists" propose.
@BrianH
Probability?
@BrianH
Quantum entanglement?
@BrianH According to wiki things can travel than the speed of light but information can't be sent by them.
"Another quantum effect that predicts the occurrence of faster-than-light speeds is called the Hartman effect; under certain conditions the time needed for a particle to tunnel through a barrier is constant.[35][36] This could result in a particle crossing a large gap faster-than-light. However, no information can be sent using this effect.[37]
As is discussed in the propagation of light in a medium section below, many wave velocities can exceed c. For example, the phase velocity of X-rays through most glasses can routinely exceed c,[38] but such waves cannot convey any information.[39]"
No, I have no idea what most of that means or even if I interpreted it correctly.
Additionally, what I have previously wondered and wonder more now that I just read that some people theorize that the speed of light has changed over time how we go and take some of these theories and apply them as laws. That we understand enough of what makes up everything and feel like there is no variable we might have just not been aware of because it's invisible to us...eh, maybe I'm dumb and I should stop and just trust the scientists...
@juanvaldez ...and mathematicians and anyone else I improperly lumped in with scientists.
@BrianH I am no expert on this, but sorry for my ignorance, if I am incorrect. Now I personally don't believe in the "big bang", but according to articles I've read and TV shows I've watched the big bang was faster than the speed of light, am I not correct? Not that it has to do anything with the article but I do believe science believes there has/and or/is been something faster than light.
@SskyNnet Relativity permits travel through space at speeds faster than that of light, it does not permit expansion of space itself at a speed faster than the speed of light – which is presumably what happened right after the origin of the universe.
@Graumagier Relativity _forbids_ transmission of matter of information through space at speeds FTL, of course. And permits expansion of space FTL. Sorry about that.
@juanvaldez Once again, the catch is the "transmission of information" bit. There are certain events that take place at speeds >c (e.g. quantum entanglement), but it is not possible to transmit information (much less matter) via these effects.
Oh, and science treats these theories as "laws" because they are experimentally confirmed to incredible accuracy. And because both the Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics made numerous predictions that seemed crazy at the time, but were all confirmed, some several decades after their original proposal.
@SskyNnet
The way i have interpreted that is that the "ends" or objects in the universe were moving away from each other faster than the speed of light, which makes perfect sense.
If one individual thing cannot move faster than the speed of light, that doesn't mean that the combined speed at which they are traveling away from each other can't be greater. (also the reason why one day, the sky will be dark at night, because one day the combined speeds we are moving away from each other at will cause light from other stars and galaxies to not reach us).
Also, light travels in a straight line in space (unless something massive like a black hole is present i think), but the universe is supposedly expanded (and continues to do so) in 360 degrees, so it wouldn't need to "move" faster than light to double millions of times in a second.
just my take on it, im not a physicist.
@BrianH "If one individual thing cannot move faster than the speed of light, that doesn't mean that the combined speed at which they are traveling away from each other can't be greater." – That's the thing about expanding space. The speed of light itself is absolute, so your assumption does not hold for objects moving through space.
@juanvaldez
Don't trust the scientists! While they are plenty smart by human standards, they are incredibly stupid and foolish by the standards of the universe. The biggest blunder science makes (based on their OWN standards) is to essentially treat theories, over time, knowing they will never be able to recreate them, as facts. Few professions demand so much respect for having a track record that is off by billions of years and literally taking stabs in the dark. When it comes to matters of the universe, your guess is likely to be more accurate than the scientists; yes, even if you think you know nothing!
@skadget "The biggest blunder science makes (based on their OWN standards) is to essentially treat theories, over time, knowing they will never be able to recreate them, as facts. "
Where did you get that piece of junk from?
@Graumagier
Straight from the leading centers of education...glad you can see it for what it is!
@skadget I've hoped for some clarification on that gross overgeneralization of yours, actually…
@skadget
yea, and perpetual motion exists.
@Graumagier
You speak as if you want others to believe you are smart. You certainly act like you want to be smart. Let's see if you really are, or if you some wiki copy/paste poser.
Tell me, what kind of galaxy do we live in? How many stars are in our galaxy? Explain to me your rationalization for whatever answers you come up with for each question.
@skadget "Tell me, what kind of galaxy do we live in? How many stars are in our galaxy? Explain to me your rationalization for whatever answers you come up with for each question."
We live in a spiral galaxy named "Milky Way", which is estimated to consist of approx. 100–400 billion stars. Yes, I copied the last bit from Wikipedia. I assume you counted them all? I still don't see where you're going with this.
@Graumagier
Of course you can't see where I am going with this. You are one of those intellectual elitists I mentioned in my first post. You are too blinded by your own self-love that you can't even begin to see that you just proved my point. No one questions your intellect, but wisdom is not automatically given with such brain power.
In all my years of education, I was, essentially as fact, taught that we live in a spiral galaxy - just as you so non-chalantly pointed out, without mentioning that it is merely an educated guess. As for the count of the stars, go look up what that number has been thought to be over the last 100 years. It's amazing how it changes. Furthermore, leaving a 300 billion year span is, oh so not scientific. An awful lot can happen in 1 million years, let alone in 300 billion. What you pulled is no different than me going up to someone and saying, "I can guess your age within 99 years." Oh, really? The sad truth is, I know I am going to be within 99 years. You could still be way off with your guess of the stars.
More than the mere answers you gave, what bothers me is that just because of a common consensus, you treat things as fact. I don't ever recall hearing of a common consensus as one of the aboslute guages within the scientific model.
In all fairness, I, too, should give my answers to the questions I asked you. Here it is. Even if I were the smartest man alive, having attended the most prestigious eductional institute known to man, and graduated at the top of my class, I wouldn't begin to know what kind of galaxy I live in, nor the number of stars in my galaxy. I can make a wild guess, but that is all.
Are you sure we live in a spiral galaxy? Have you seen it? Can you prove it?
Someone looked up in the sky with a neat new toy and saw that many stars were indeed amazing clusters of stars. We called them galaxies. Many of them looked like this cool spiral with an enormously bright center, far greater than any one star ever could be. So, we must be a spiral galaxy, too. That rationale is not science. Yet, this exact answer is taugh virtually as fact in nearly all our text books.
I was told by a higly intellectual scientist once that the reason we can't see the bright center of our galaxy is because we live way out on the outer fringe and that dust and gases block our view of this bright center. Really?
I can see with my own naked eyes the bright center of many galaxies that are astronomically far away, but I can't see the bright center of my own galaxy that I live in? Are you telling me that while a cloud can block the view of the sun, that it also aborbs all light from the sun? If a bright center of a galaxy is as huge as I have seen, then no cloud of dust nor gas is going to stop me from seeing the light from the center, especially if I can see so many other spiral centers out there with my own naked eye!
I respect true scientists. I do not respect the quacks out there who pose as real scientists merely because of a paper degree. I appreciate the quest for truth. I do not respect those who are dogmatically using science to justify their own foolishness.
Yes, question the science community and hold them accountable for what they come up with, for there are too many who are in pursuit of their own egos as opposed to the pursuit of truth.
@skadget "I can see with my own naked eyes the bright center of many galaxies that are astronomically far away, but I can't see the bright center of my own galaxy that I live in?"
Does "Supermassive Black Hole" ring a bell? Also, in many cases you don't see the brightness of a galaxy's center, just the entire galaxy's emitted light.
In general: I absolutely agree with you about questioning science and the results science produces. But amazingly enough science is a process quite capable of controlling itself.
You're in fact being inconsistent with your reasoning there, first pointing out the change in common consensus as if it were a flaw, while that is in fact how science works – and then stating that science is apparently too ignorant to see when it's wrong?
I'm very sorry that you apparently don't trust science, but I'm also very sure that this would change if you would actually care to learn about it – excuse my "eliticism", but you'd better have some pretty neat evidence when taking on the entire field of modern cosmology.
@skadget
I give you a big fat LOL for your comments. Nice to read. Asking for substance without giving any seems to be your best skill. You don't question science. You don't believe in it it seems. That's a big difference.
Btw, I won't even start with your confusion of 300 billion stars and 300 billion years.
@SeeKo
You are right. I may have mixed up my numbers. That is a syntax error, more so than a logical one. The concept still remains the same once the syntax is cleared up. It is a blog, not a scientific paper. I'm sure you have made a few typos yourself.
True, I did only use one general topic to make a point. That is all it took. There are many more, but that would be better served in some form of oratorial forum rather than a blog. I'm sorry you could not see my point. You might want to add a little more substance to your comment so that I can address my shortcomings better.
I am a flawed human being and freely admit so. But I am also one who questions things and willing to challenge an idea, no matter what the source. I may not be very smart, but I am not completely blind, either. Thanks for your comment. I always have room for improvement.
@skadget
" If a bright center of a galaxy is as huge as I have seen, then no cloud of dust nor gas is going to stop me from seeing the light from the center, especially if I can see so many other spiral centers out there with my own naked eye!"
seriously?
are you honestly telling me you can't comprehend why you can't see light when something is in front of the source relative to us?
@skadget
Umm... Can you see your head with your own eyes?
@Graumagier
Hate to tell you this guys, but you're talking about things that are rather irrelevent to Quantum Computing, especially that tid-bit about not being able to have information go faster than the speed of light.
The way Quantum Computers work is by having the state of one of two quantumly connected particles change, so that the other particle feels the same change. The way results are obtained in quantum computing is by constantly changing and reading the states of those particles. So it would be quite easy to instantaneously transfer 1 Petabyte of info to the other side of the world (side effect being that you no longer have that information on the side of the world you are on)
Quantum computing is VERY limited and it is highly doubtful it will ever effect the normal person. That kind of technology is most useful for things like breaking an AES 256bit encryption is virtually no time at all. It's useful for that because a theoretical quantum computer doesn't search for the right answer, going through millions of possibilities, it instead knows what is the wrong answer, and therefore the right answer is deduced. It's a complicated tid-bit but in short, it wont run Crysis.
Fun Trivia: Most powerful quantum computer can only calculate prime numbers up to 7.
@Freakie "
Freakie
Freakie Posted Jun 7th 2010 4:43AM
Neutral
@Graumagier
Hate to tell you this guys, but you're talking about things that are rather irrelevent to Quantum Computing, especially that tid-bit about not being able to have information go faster than the speed of light.
"
In my defense, I didn't start it. But you are absolutely right ;)
But will it run Crysis?
*waits to be downvoted*
@Sonnyjimba
Imagine the games possible on a full Quantum Light Gaming Desktop...
Team Fortress 3 here we come :D
@Sonnyjimba This is the beginning stages of Multivac, the supercomputer that will solve all of humanity's questions.
@revmixman Skynet. :o
also we already know that the meaning of life is 42, so that's one less thing we need to ask about.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
How do they get the chocolate in chocolate eclairs?
When will Justin Beiber hit puberty?
Etc etc
@Sonnyjimba
"Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
Once upon a time, a long, long time ago there lived a bird, not unlike a chicken but not really a chicken and this bird not unlike a chicken but not really a chicken laid an egg and from that egg hatched the first chicken.
Beautiful, isn't it? Though I've got the nagging feeling I messed up some of the grammar...
Nothing beats a good ol' laser computer on a sunday afternooon
I doubt we will see this in stores for another 20 years (even if they manage to make it tomorrow), hmm 30 maybe