Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Theoretical Breakthrough For Quantum Cryptography

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the add-qutrits-to-your-super-scrabble-words dept.

Encryption 116

KentuckyFC writes "Quantum cryptography uses the quantum properties of photons to guarantee perfect secrecy. But one of its lesser known limitations is that it only works if Alice and Bob are perfectly aligned so that they can carry out well-defined polarization measurements on the photons as they arrive. Physicists say that Alice and Bob must share the same reference frame. That's OK if Alice and Bob are in their own ground-based labs, but it's a problem in many other applications, such as ground-to-satellite communications or even in chip-to-chip communications, because it's hard to keep chips still over distances of the order of the wavelength of light. Now a group of UK physicists have developed a way of doing quantum cryptography without sharing a reference frame. The trick is to use entangled triplets of photons, so-called qutrits, rather than entangled pairs. This solves the problem by embedding it in an extra abstract dimension, which is independent of space. So, as long as both Alice and Bob know the way in which all these abstract dimensions are related, the third provides a reference against which measurements of the other two can be made. That allows Alice and Bob to make any measurements they need without having to agree ahead of time on a frame of reference. That could be an important advance enabling the widespread use of quantum cryptography."

cancel ×

116 comments

Stay away from this (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31400948)

One thing, with quantum crypto, the code changes when you look at it. In other words, you have to know the key before seeing it.

Two, it kills a LOT of cats! You get the code right, and BAM! dead cat.

PETA will be against this!

Re:Stay away from this (1)

pushf popf (741049) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401104)

Yeah, that's just what I was going to say. He stole my idea!

You just have to wrap the secret bit-thingies in double-secret bit-thingies and before you know it's you're a tenured professor because nobody knows what the hell you're actually doing.

Just wait until he replaces the dilithium crystals with Folgers, then we'll really be in trouble.

Re:Stay away from this (3, Funny)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401674)

Yeah, that's just what I was going to say. He stole my idea!
Don't panic. Find comfort in the fact that there's a universe in which a bear brutally sodomized then killed him before he was able to push the Submit button.

Re:Stay away from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401228)

Didn't anyone mention this to ziggy?

Re:Stay away from this (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401298)

Two, it kills a LOT of cats! You get the code right, and BAM! dead cat.

I always suspected that all this "entangling photon pairs" and "quantum encryption channel" stuff was just a bunch of scientists jerking off, but I didn't think they were actually euphemisms for spanking it!

Re:Stay away from this (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401442)

I always suspected that all this "entangling photon pairs" and "quantum encryption channel" stuff was just a bunch of scientists jerking off...

Exactly. This is sort of why I am deeply suspicious of quantum cryptography. When is a cat not a cat? Look at your data sideways, and it suddenly realises that it's not supposed to exist?

Oh wait, that sounds like a Microsoft filesystem... ;-)

Re:Stay away from this (0, Offtopic)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401316)

If PETA is against it, that more or less guarantees my support of it.

Re:Stay away from this (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401420)

Don't jump to a conclusion; we need confirmatory objections from Greenpeace [theregister.co.uk] before we can get fully behind it.

Re:Stay away from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401440)

How's that bandwagon of yours? Feel good to act macho by hating what you're told to hate by talk radio on a daily basis?

Fucking sheep.

Re:Stay away from this (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401544)

Mmmm, sheep

Re:Stay away from this (0, Flamebait)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401556)

Bandwagon is great, thanks :) Who listens to talk radio, and more importantly how do YOU know what it's saying? Looks like we have a PETA member who's pissed that everyone knows he's a loony bird.

Re:Stay away from this (0, Offtopic)

Plunky (929104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403012)

PETA == "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"

Its not about hate, its about recognising that animals have feelings too. If you ever had a pet you would know this of course.. Also, I just saw this comment [slashdot.org] about copyright law and the UK Pirate Party which applies to PETA just as much. You can be sure that they won't get anywhere near what they are asking for but they know that and want you to consider that already you are sitting in an unethical position. They want to and need to rub your face in it because otherwise you just ignore what is going on in your name..

Re:Stay away from this (0, Offtopic)

elfprince13 (1521333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403880)

Ethical treatment of animals is great. Breaking news: PETA doesn't stand for it. They're a pile of attention whores who would rather euthanize an animal than let it stay in a loving household where it will be subjected to "slavery and indignity"

Re:Stay away from this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31405128)

PETA == "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"

Its not about hate, its about recognising that animals have feelings too. If you ever had a pet you would know this of course.. Also, I just saw this comment [slashdot.org] about copyright law and the UK Pirate Party which applies to PETA just as much. You can be sure that they won't get anywhere near what they are asking for but they know that and want you to consider that already you are sitting in an unethical position. They want to and need to rub your face in it because otherwise you just ignore what is going on in your name..

You been punked!

Wow, that's pretty bad.

Just how bad is PETA?

PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2009, [petakillsanimals.com] filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 97 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2009, PETA found adoptive homes for just eight pets.

Just eight animals -- out of the 2,366 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.

Nice to know PETA managed to put EIGHT whole pets up for adoption in 2009.

Woo hoo. Bunch of dedicated animal rights activists there, eh?

Ain't you the fool.

Re:Stay away from this (1)

AmigaMMC (1103025) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401412)

It's ok, cats taste good. I hope they're not too entangled though or they get between my teeth.

They should deal with their own skeletons first (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401564)

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm

When PETA's hands are clean then I will allow them to lecture on the evils of killing animals for the purposes of food/progress. Until then, they are just hypocrites to be ignored.

Used in porn? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31400954)

Perhaps they can use this to film Quadtits.

so the way i read it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31400986)

you just pulled all this shit out of a hat.

qutrits? (0, Offtopic)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31400998)

Applying the standard naming conventions would result in qutits. I much prefer qutits.

Re:qutrits? (2, Interesting)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401008)

Especially when dealing with entangled triplets.

Re:qutrits? (2, Funny)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401026)

cute tits or quit its?

Re:qutrits? (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401656)

Somehow saying the one tends to get the other in response anyway...

Re:qutrits? (1)

Compunexus (711717) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402128)

cute tits or quit its?

Both obviously!

Re:qutrits? (1)

bytethese (1372715) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402628)

Yes.

Re:qutrits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31403080)

Quit its? That's what she said after you said cute tits!

Re:qutrits? (1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401156)

Applying the standard naming conventions would result in qutits. I much prefer qutits.

And the scientific community would be rather better off choosing names that let us focus on the furtherance of humanity's knowledge of the inner workings of the universe than opening the door for juvenile jokes.

Re:qutrits? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401214)

Applying the standard naming conventions would result in qutits. I much prefer qutits.

And the scientific community would be rather better off choosing names that let us focus on the furtherance of humanity's knowledge of the inner workings of the universe than opening the door for juvenile jokes.

The planet Uranus thanks you.

Everyone else thinks you're a bit too uptight.

Re:qutrits? (0, Offtopic)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401296)

Hint...

This was in fact a juvenile joke.

I wasn't being serious.

Do I need to use smileys or [/joke] ubbcodes in every post?

Re:qutrits? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31404928)

Do I need to use smileys or [/joke] ubbcodes in every post?

Yes. You do. In every post.

Re:qutrits? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31404536)

As Howard Tayler of Schlock Mercenary notes,

the same abbreviational logic that turned "binary digit" into "bit" turned "trinary digit" into "tit." This nomenclatural error set computing back nearly three hundred years, and two entire generations of promising computer scientists were lost trying to keep abreast of bad puns.

Cubits, Tribist, Biscuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401010)

"That could be an important advance enabling the widespread use of quantum cryptography."

Please enlighten the Slashdot crowd about where quantum cryptography is USED at all.

Yours In Ashgabat,
Kilgore Trout

Re:Cubits, Tribist, Biscuits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401110)

Killgore... get your ass back in darkfall.

-Shiva

"Alice and Bob must share the same reference frame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401046)

But Alice will share a frame with ANYBODY, knowwhatimsayin'?

Quantum Communications (1, Offtopic)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401050)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, and I haven't had time to read the entire article, but wouldn't this also bypass the conventional data transmission necessity for quantum communications?

Re:Quantum Communications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401314)

Typical Slashdot comment: I haven't read the article, but I think I am so much smarter than the scientist working on this. Here is why they are wrong.

Re:Quantum Communications (0, Offtopic)

CTalkobt (81900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401348)

Gah drbbt.. Accidentally modded parent as redundant. Posting to remove it (was going to be insightful).

Re:Quantum Communications (2, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401400)

Would this system still allow alice/bob to know if someone's evesdropped? What's the difference between a hostile evesdropper and just some other part of the infrastructure for getting data from alice to bob? Without that, quantum cryptography is just another encryption system, and there are nothing wrong with the current ones. Right? (It would arouse me if replies to this post started simply "Wrong.")

Re:Quantum Communications (2, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401902)

(It would arouse me if replies to this post started simply "Wrong.")

Not to judge your lifestyle choices, but I'm pretty sure that the reason no one has replied as such has to do with the collective will of the community not to see you aroused.

Re:Quantum Communications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401432)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong here, and I haven't had time to read the entire article, but wouldn't this also bypass the conventional data transmission necessity for quantum communications?

YES SIR PLEASE MANY EXCUSE BUT CAN YOU LET ME KNOW ABOUT THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY TO TRANSFER A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY SO WE CAN BOTH PROFIT. THANK YOU SIR VERY MUCH AND ALL GOOD WISHES

Engineering (2, Interesting)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401076)

I think this is engineering, not theory. Theory was the original idea of using entanglement for cryptography. Now they're applying the technology to make it practical, and that's engineering. They're adding a bit of steel or another entanglement to make it more usable. If nobody has built this device yet, it's theoretical engineering.

Re:Engineering (3, Insightful)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401138)

What makes you think that theory and engineering are mutually exclusive, with a fine dividing line?

Re:Engineering (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401464)

/ is the only dividing line allowed in here.

Re:Engineering (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31405186)

Don't you ever mess with my pipe separated files!!!

Re:Engineering (3, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401318)

Theory is coming up with a hypothetical mechanism for incorporating extra information so that it doesn't require a known reference frame.

Engineering is making a device that actually does it reliably.

As my sibling post said, there's no clear dividing line. But this is definitely on the theory-ish side of it.

Re:Engineering (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402898)

The Billard Ball [wikipedia.org] is the difference between theory and engineering. The Theoretician tells the Engineer it can't be done. The Engineer does it anyway. And the Theoretician "accidentally" kills the Engineer with the resulting invention.

Re:Engineering (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402474)

Now they're applying the technology to make it practical, and that's engineering.

After that, the time for the third phase - marketing and selling - will come, when patents, stupid business plans and inflated prices will make it impractical again.

Re:Engineering (1)

gtall (79522) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403082)

You've discovered the Quantum Theory of Engineering: If it practical enough to produce, Business School Product will screw it up into being impractical to produce. The tricky part is that if Business School Product is practical enough to produce, then Business School Product becomes impractical to produce. When this happens, a fixed point is reached and all the world's business schools go out of business because it is then recognized no one in their right mind would go into the business of building a business school.

Re:Engineering (1)

CubicleView (910143) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402626)

No, in all your years of /. have you never followed one of those developer != engineer rants? For this to be considered engineering, at the very least the failure of the process should put people in mortal danger. Since People != Cats, we can assume this is not engineering. This is priobably more akin to some sort of quantom crafting than engineering.

Ambiguous title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401116)

By 'theoretical breakthrough', does that mean we theoretically may have made a breakthrough in quantum cryptography? Quick, nobody observe the research process!

You lost me at hello... (4, Funny)

PPalmgren (1009823) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401118)

Boy am I glad I didn't pursue that physics major. The only thing I got out of that is that Alice and Bob needed a marriage counselor to reconcile their differences.

Anyone mind converting that attempt in layman's terms to something useful, like a car analogy?

Re:You lost me at hello... (1)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401190)

Quantum physics does not have a car analogy. Cars cant be mixed up and then split so each part has a bit of the other, and not just physically. if one car starts, it means its parts in both entangled sets start and the moment you go and look witch of the cars you have it becomes one or another, instantly causing the other entangled car thingy to become the car you didn't get. Also, fu Eve.

Re:You lost me at hello... (2, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401404)

Quantum physics does not have a car analogy. Cars cant be mixed up and then split so each part has a bit of the other, and not just physically. if one car starts, it means its parts in both entangled sets start and the moment you go and look witch of the cars you have it becomes one or another, instantly causing the other entangled car thingy to become the car you didn't get. Also, fu Eve.

Hungarian Physicists and Automotive Engineers are closer to tackling that problem:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/24/1614245/Hungarian-Electric-Car-Splits-Into-Two-Smaller-Cars [slashdot.org]

Re:You lost me at hello... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401192)

it's like:
Alice wants to sell her car to Bob, but they need to be in the same place at the same time to make it happen
but if Alice sells it to some intermediary, who then sells it to Bob, then that requirement is unnecessary

now if somebody made up what are the photons in the analogy, it would be complete ;-)

Re:You lost me at hello... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401196)

Alice and Bob both have a garage, but instead of telling each other how to open the garage door they get a few chicks with huge tits to do it themselves.

Re:You lost me at hello... (5, Informative)

mrsurb (1484303) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401230)

I'll give it a shot.

Alice wants to get out of her car and into Bob's car. In laboratory conditions both cars are perfectly still so it's easy. Out on the freeway travelling at high speeds it's a recipe for disaster.

But these clever engineers have come up with a wonderful design for a semi-trailer that both cars can sit on while being driven down the freeway. Now Alice and get out of her car and into Bob's car for that secret rendezvous. In the middle of the freeway.

Re:You lost me at hello... (4, Funny)

JaneTheIgnorantSlut (1265300) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401476)

Do Carol and Ted know about this?

Re:You lost me at hello... (1)

Schiphol (1168667) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401514)

That's not new. The Foundation for Law and Goverment [wikipedia.org] had such a system in place almost thirty years ago. We've seen rehashed stories in /. before, but really, guys, 30 years?

Re:You lost me at hello... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402604)

Well, you have to consider that FLAG wasn't confident enough about the capabilities of their car's artificially intelligent on-board computers to recognize its driver to not require a hidden fingerprint scanner underneath its door handles as an access control.

Re:You lost me at hello... (1)

slayer_ix (927649) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403496)

Nice analogy *internet high five*

Re:You lost me at hello... (1)

jbezorg (1263978) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403522)

But these clever engineers have come up with a wonderful design for a semi-trailer that both cars can sit on while being driven down the freeway. Now Alice and get out of her car and into Bob's car for that secret rendezvous. In the middle of the freeway.

Eve hijacks the semi-trailer... shocking film at eleven.

Re:You lost me at hello... (1)

ascari (1400977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403552)

What's wrong with just parking?

Re:You lost me at hello... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401386)

Don't worry. I have a physics major and that summary lost me too. It also seems to have lost TFA too as it firsts talks about that this will help with ground satellite because 2 photon entanglement crypto already worked in the lab. Then, they switch to say that 2 photon entanglement fails to work between 2 chips on same board because effective distance between chips can change more than a wavelength. Of course, there is no chips doing quantum crypto anyway.

So, frankly, TFA does nothing to explain anything except it does a bunch of hand waving. This entire thing could as well be summerized to,

        "Someone did something new w.r.t. Quantum Crypto. It may be useful."

Now, you want a car analogy?

      "Someone may have found how to attach a wheel to the car."

Re:You lost me at hello... (2, Informative)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401540)

Here's my own amateur shot at it. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone who knows better will correct me. Oh, and fuck the car analogy.

The quantum entanglement measurements will only work with two entangled photons when the velocities and accelerations of the two parties involved are the same. But if you're doing it with two objects with different motion, say a person on the ground and a satellite orbiting the earth, it won't. The satellite is in free fall and, according to general relativity, not in an accelerated reference frame. A person on earth, though, is feeling a constant acceleration coming up from the ground because of gravity holding him there. One difference between the two is because one is in an accelerated reference frame and the other is not, their clocks are moving at different rates.

The fix for this is to have a third entangled photon in another reference frame. As long as the motion relative between all reference frames are known, the person on the ground and the satellite can use the third entangled photon as a reference point for them to make measurements between the two with their own entangled photons.

Sorry if I'm off about this but if someone corrects me then, hey, it's a learning process for us both.

Re:You lost me at hello... (2, Informative)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402762)

The satellite is in free fall and, according to general relativity, not in an accelerated reference frame.

If you're not moving in a straight line at a constant speed, you're in an accelerated reference frame. Satellites are in orbit; there's no such thing as a straight-line orbit.

Re:You lost me at hello... (1)

Tyler Durden (136036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403184)

Are you sure about that? It was my understanding that since it's free-falling in orbit that according to general relativity it was going in a straight line through space-time.

Re:You lost me at hello... (1)

jandoedel (1149947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31405126)

there's no such thing as a straight-line orbit.
Find an orbit where you pass through one of the Lagrange points. While you are in the Lagrange points, you are moving in a straight line, because all accelerations cancel each other out there.

Re:You lost me at hello... (1)

jandoedel (1149947) | more than 4 years ago | (#31405208)

there's no such thing as a straight-line orbit.

Find an orbit where you pass through one of the Lagrange points. While you are in the Lagrange points, you are moving in a straight line, because all accelerations cancel each other out there.

Re:You lost me at hello... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402126)

No car analogy, but I think I summarize it a little simpler (though I am no expert).
In Quantum Cryptography it's possible to detect the presence of an eavesdropper. The eavesdropper, by the act of listening changes the transmission of the signal and is provably unable to put it right again. This is possible because of some physics mumbo-jumbo and is highly sensitive to the distances between the people involved.
As best I can make out, this research used more physics mumbo-jumbo to encode the distances between the involved parties inside the communication so that they can move about (instead of being tethered together by a fixed length line of fiber-optic cable).

"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (5, Insightful)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401208)

"This solves the problem by embedding it in an extra abstract dimension, which is independent of space."

Has it occurred to anyone else how UNBELIEVABLY FRIGGIN' COOL it is that a line like that shows up in an article that is talking about building an actual, physical device?

Re:"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (1, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401362)

Gentlemen, we have reached magic. Scientists are now no different than necromancers.

Re:"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (0)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401384)

Yup, I call Sufficiently Advanced Technology on that.

Re:"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (0)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401396)

AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

The zombie apocalypse is nigh! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!

Re:"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (1)

ascari (1400977) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403580)

Actually, since this is quantum physics "nighish" would be a better choice of adjective.

Re:"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401848)

They sure picked the right words to make you happy :)

Re:"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (1)

francium de neobie (590783) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401936)

The "dimension" here only shows up when you're looking at the mathematical model - it's not that we've managed to transport information through time or the WSOGMM.

Re:"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (4, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402562)

Has it occurred to anyone else how UNBELIEVABLY FRIGGIN' COOL it is that a line like that shows up in an article that is talking about building an actual, physical device?

I can vividly see the label on the unit packaging: "Dimensions: 0.45 x 0.3 x 0.25 x 1.7 m"

Re:"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (1)

FishOuttaWater (1163787) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403716)

My kingdom for mod points, and thank the gods I wasn't drinking coffee when I read this.

We are SCIENTISTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402912)

Let's just create another dimension and send everything through there, FUCK YEAH!!!

Re:"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402964)

It sounds cool, but actually it's nothing new.

When you model electron spin (or any spin, for that matter), you introduce mathematical dimensions to describe that degree of freedom. It's not a space dimension either.

In many contexts it makes sense to equate dimensions and degrees of freedom; this seems just one of its applications

Re:"This solves the problem by embedding it...." (1)

fritsd (924429) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403094)

which is independent of space.

Yes. Now get off my $%!$!#$% intergalactic intertube!!!
signed: your local Galactic Overlord

Money? (0, Offtopic)

drumcat (1659893) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401244)

Does this not seem like the most wasteful project ever? Can I get my tax money spent a little more cogently?

Re:Money? (1)

holmstar (1388267) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403996)

They are working on developing a communication technology that would allow one absolute proof that nobody is listening in. (if anyone tried to listen in, it would always be detectable.) You don't think that there are vast applications for such a technology?

Translation of summary (3, Funny)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401256)

Glap glar photons biddle doo-vack triple photon vajmu double photon zirreyzoo-zah picture frame powlat pweegoo paparazzi photos of Alice and Bob.

Re:Translation of summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31401988)

Yup, typical American.

Re:Translation of summary (1)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 4 years ago | (#31402564)

Why mod this guy down? That was funny! And I did flub the translation. "glar" is the feminine form and I should have used the masculine "glaro" instead.

Dangit... (0, Offtopic)

barfy (256323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401498)

I was all set to sell crypto supplies and repair services in the alternate dimension. Do you have any idea what this is going to do to housing prices there?

Just wondering .. (3, Funny)

fractalspace (1241106) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401522)

Why cant they simply open a sub space channel and use a Tachyon pulse to synchronize the two frames ?

Re:Just wondering .. (4, Funny)

ElAurian (133656) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401976)

They'd have to reroute the plasma flow and depolarise the graviton matrix first. Duh.

Re:Just wondering .. (1)

ItsJustAPseudonym (1259172) | more than 4 years ago | (#31404896)

Simplicity itself. Just use Borg nanoprobes havested from Seven of Nine.

Re:Just wondering .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31405006)

If I'm reading the summary right, I think that's actually what they're doing.

If I'm reading the summary right.

Specs (0, Offtopic)

jlebrech (810586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401552)

Will CPUs be measured by the Bob:Alice ratio from now on?

Alice and Bob (0, Offtopic)

RawJoe (712281) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401650)

Something tells me that Alice and Bob are going to great lengths to keep their affair a secret...

Masters of the world (2, Funny)

NCamero (35481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401742)

I, for one welcome our new quantum overlords.

Sound like Alice and Bob have discovered... (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#31401834)

... quantum parity!

Excellent summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31402190)

It's absolutely uber, leaving no question unanswered. Can I have children with you? '

Kids today... (2, Funny)

grepya (67436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403120)

... if Alice and Bob are perfectly aligned so that they can carry out well-defined polarization measurements ....

Oh... so that's what the kids are calling it these days... ??

Quantum Horse Shit (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403360)

Bob sends Alice a super secret quantum message.

Michael in the middle intercepts it.
Michael reads all the same quantum security shit Alice was suppose to verify.
Michael sends a fake message with all the quantum security shit duplicated.

Quantum doesn't solve shit - if it can be read (to be verified) it can be recreated.

Until there is a 100% reliable network with no processing delay, man-in-the-middle attacks will be possible. Until then, Michael will be able to intercept a message, read it, send a spoofed message in it's place. So what if it came a little later than expected? There are plenty of routers and fuckups along the way to add latency.

All security boils down to a key sharing problem.
We can't get that shit right in real life.

Come again? (1)

gaelfx (1111115) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403410)

Maybe I'm not up on my vocab as of late, but since when does the phrase "Theoretical Breakthrough" make any kind of sense?

Frame reference Independence? = Black Hole Probe? (1)

ShadowXOmega (808299) | more than 4 years ago | (#31403542)

I have a question:
If this arrangement enables the two sets of particles to see the state of the other ones with no interference of the frame or reference...
what will happen if i drop a pair of those ones in a black hole?
the remaining pair...what will measure? a ever increase rate of information? or what?

Third guy (1)

vikingpower (768921) | more than 4 years ago | (#31405062)

I just KNEW there was a third guy involved in there. Bob was never going to satisfy Alice all by himself, all these years.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...