Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

7
  • $\begingroup$ It does not succeed 50% of the time, it succeeds far less than that since the probability that all of the bits are equal to the message Alice has is (1/2)^1000 (1/2 correct * 1/2 correct * ...). Yes, 50% of the bits will be the same as the intended message, however I'm not certain that's relevant here. I could encode each of those 1000 bits in a single qubit, teleport it, and, assuming I had a way to get all of them out of that single qubit, I could have a 25% chance of getting the intended message without transmitting classical information. That's far better than random chance. $\endgroup$ Commented May 14, 2020 at 12:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Techmaster21 Could you expand on how to encode 1000 bits in a single qubits and then retreive the information? (If you can do that, not only you broke multiple theorems in information theory, but you're going to collect a lot of prizes!) I guess you could encode however many bits you want in the amplitudes of the states, but you can't measure those with a single shot measurement. Maybe the problem is your proposed protocol for that. $\endgroup$ Commented May 14, 2020 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ @user2723984 See the last paragraph of this answer physics.stackexchange.com/a/383044. I didn't intend to propose using a single-shot measurement, but rather a series of measurements on copies of the teleported qubit. $\endgroup$ Commented May 14, 2020 at 15:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you should post "why can't I store $n$ qubits in 1 qubit and use an approximate cloning procedure to retreive the information" as a different question, as I think that's what your problem boils down to, note that I'm pretty sure such a procedure would violate Holevo's theorem, as you start from a single qubit and succesfully extract $n$ bits of information from it, even if to do it you used some other (initially "blank") qubits $\endgroup$ Commented May 14, 2020 at 15:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Techmaster21 the last paragraph of that post assumes you already have a large number of copies of the qubit, in which case you can reconstruct the amplitudes, but if you have a single copy you have to produce all of these clones, doing so exactly is impossible by the no-cloning theorem, and I guess (though it would be interesting to see it directly without referencing higher theorems) that any approximate cloning procedure wouldn't be enough (i.e, the error in the cloning would grow faster than the uncertainty in the amplitudes shrink) $\endgroup$ Commented May 14, 2020 at 15:43