Orathaic and abge are right, krellin. Let's take your first link, for example. Go down near the bottom, where it lists references. Notice that it has a link to an article by Bennett, et al., which the article has said is the source for everything it's doing. The link takes you here:
http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportation/teleportation.html
Now click on the link "The paper," and open it in a ps reader. Go to the bottom of page 2 and read the last sentence. Notice it says this:
"In particular it cannot take place instantaneously or over a spacelike interval...." Notice also that the title is "Teleporting an UNKNOWN Quantum state..." (emphasis mine).
Similarly, see the wikipedia page on this topic (which is also linked from the article you sent, and thus, presumably, considered by its authors to be a reliable source). It says, "[H]owever it does not immediately transmit classical information, and therefore cannot be used for communication at superluminal (faster than light) speed."
Here is why. Suppose we have two entangled particles, A and B. Say we're going to measure their spin. I take A and give you B, and then we go off ten billion light years away from each other. We've agreed to make the measurement at a particular time (relativistically specified, of course). I measure mine at the appropriate time, and get spin up. You measure yours and get spin down. Now, the minute that I measure spin up, I KNOW that you will get spin down. But I can't MAKE myself get spin up. I don't know what I'll get till I measure. So we can't do something like, "Send me spin-up if we win the war," or something, because I have no way to force a correlation between the outcome of the hypothetical war and the spin of the particle. So in this sense, I cannot send information. We do each know what the other's particle did -- so there was only one random event, not two, if you wish -- but we can't send any information that way. See?
Now, what the Bennett method allows you to do (and quite ingeniously) is to copy the state of a THIRD particle using entangled particles and the result of a classical experiment (which would have to be sent between us using traditional methods, such as a light-beam, or perhaps preferably, a neutrino beam). This is still pretty cool, but it is addressing a different problem -- not the speed of light information limit (which remains), but the measure-and-you-will-destroy (Heisenberg) barrier to reproducing a state.
Of course, it also destroys the original state, so it's all a very black-widowish kind of reproduction, lol.
Anyway, I hope you see that even your own sources don't support your position.
In frankness, I do think you were on the rude side toward abge even before his complaint, though admittedly you were not as rude as you often are, or were immediately after his complaint. You were merely very condescending.
It's easy to mock one for just accepting what professors say, and that is a potential area of going wrong. But another such area is never to learn what the professors say or understand it, and then to dive into research material and misunderstand it because you don't really understand the basic principles of the field (on which, as we've seen, even these researchers were building, and which they were assuming). Don't be too quick to accuse someone of the former when in fact you may be committing the latter.
Regards.
Opinions?
)
)
)
)
)