What is Digg?59 Comments
- LiquidFusion, on 03/29/2008, -1/+371,500 KM of quantum channels and still nothing worth watching.
- cygnus2112, on 03/29/2008, -0/+29Unbeknownst to the majority of simple inhabitants on Terra, the bombardment of photons towards the planet Xe'natch'ka was viewed as a declaration of war.
- keyme, on 03/29/2008, -0/+211500km = 1500000m
C = 299792458 m/s
=> Δt = 0.005003461 sec
5ms, pretty good ping time if you ask me. - inactive, on 03/29/2008, -2/+20at first glance i thought this was about quantum entanglement which would be far cooler.
- dhughes, on 03/29/2008, -1/+15 Sub-space communication!
- hamobu, on 03/29/2008, -0/+12"Ensign, Open a Quantum channel to the station in orbit"
I always wanted to say that - Ramble, on 03/29/2008, -0/+11No. If you view a quantum event you change it. Therefore by attempting to hack quantum encryption you render it unreadable.
- seantubridy, on 03/29/2008, -0/+10Yeah, until we accidentally create a dangerous, artificial, quantum singularity that we can't shut down. Yeah, you know what I'm talkin' about, you geeks.
- priegog, on 03/29/2008, -0/+10Why are you being dugg down? That's what the title led me to think too. Not NEARLY as interesting.
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/29/2008, -1/+7thats the kind of anti quantum singularity rhetoric I have come to expect from you closed-minded Newtonians.
- keyme, on 03/29/2008, -1/+7The previous schemes were only mathematical. Quantum encryption is protected by the laws of physics themselves.
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/29/2008, -1/+7first steps? technically, that was fire... or maybe just tools in general. But any progress is good progress. :)
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/29/2008, -1/+6thats hilarious, I'm being dugg down like someone thinks I'm serious.
- NathanielJ, on 03/29/2008, -0/+4No, that's the whole point of quantum key distribution - that's exactly the type of thing that WON'T work. When you read the stream with your detector, you alter the stream, and the person who sent the data will know that it's been tampered with (and thus will know that the channel isn't secure, so they won't send any sensitive data using that key).
- Shogi, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3Uh, no, it's not. This has nothing to do with either of those, even in theory.
- PerroLoco, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3I guess they name them, I guess.
- ioannusdeverani, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3Oh my god, me too. Engage!
- fracai, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3I worry about the coming Zhirrzh encounter...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquerors_Trilogy - NathanielJ, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3Please don't give me a Wikipedia link to Quantum Cryptography, I work in the field. The man in the middle attack described by keyme would never work even against the bare-bones BB84 scheme.
- slicerace, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3You're really nitpicking here. The probability of detecting an observer is 1 - (3/4)^n, where n is the number of photon bits that are compared between the two people communicating. How long do you think it takes to send and compare 100 photons with some sort of automated system? It probably isn't even noticeable to the human observer; it would appear to us to be instantaneous, yet there would be a 1 in 3 trillion chance that it had happened by pure chance. And that's just with 100 photons. Try 1000. Think of how long it takes a regular computer to send 1000 bits -- basically no time today if you're using a human as an observer. Yet there is a 1 in 8 * 10^124 chance that the eavesdropper will be undetected. You would expect out of 10^124 communications that only about 1 would be successfully eavesdropped on! That's more communications than there are atoms in the entire universe, yet it would take less than a millisecond to establish the secure link.
You are right about the other types of attacks (problems in the implementation), but the basic premise behind quantum key distribution is that the communication can be made arbitrarily secure in little to no time at all. - muniak, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3More like, beam me up Scotty... This is not a wormhole.
- majordanger, on 03/29/2008, -0/+3"Those are definitely my photons, I would know them anywhere"
- ioannusdeverani, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2I guess I guess? ;)
- ioannusdeverani, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2You haven't?
- slicerace, on 03/29/2008, -1/+3Were you even alive when any of those things were invented? You look 40-45 from your picture, meaning that you weren't even born by the time that most of that stuff was invented, so how would you have any idea how much excitement there actually was when those technologies were first hypothesized? Secondly, the nuclear bomb's development was kept in secrecy so most people did not know that the US was developing it in the first place. The prospect of building one, however, had been outlined by physicists years before. I mean, can you imagine the excitement over discovering that nuclear fission has taken place by bombarding uranium with neutrons to get barium? After the energy released during the process was measured, you're telling me that nobody got excited about nuclear power or nuclear weapons because everybody understood that "these technologies did not need overstatement"?
- TheMoniker, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Funny, I wanted to know the exact energy of the arriving photon. ONE OF US WILL NEVER KNOW!
Mandatory QM joke disclaimers:
(For those following along at home: ΔEΔt is >= hbar/2, you can't know one and the other with precise accuracy at the same time. For the sticklers: I realize that Δt is the amount of time for the wavefunction to change by a standard deviation, and doesn't really have anything to do with the time it took to get there, it's just a joke.) - muhadeeb, on 03/29/2008, -3/+5Folks, this may be the first steps to Warp Drive or having a StarGate
- synned, on 03/29/2008, -0/+2Wonder precisely how long it took?
- NathanielJ, on 03/29/2008, -2/+4"...it paves the way for quantum-encrypted communication - the only form of communication that could ensure beyond any doubt that there are no eavesdroppers."
No, it doesn't ensure beyond any doubt that there are no eavesdroppers. Quantum encryption (and *many* quantum algorithms) are probabilistic, meaning that even under ideal conditions it only detects eavesdropping some percentage of the time (which can be made very high, of course). But besides that, there are numerous concerns (such as side-channel attacks by looking at photon encryption time-delays) that have been shown to severely weaken quantum encryption.
Quantum encryption will be great if/when it gets effectively implemented, yes, but the media needs to stop acting like just because something has the word "quantum" in it it's perfect and can do anything. - NathanielJ, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Uh no... it can be "hacked" by reading off time-delay information (which requires an extra 1 dimension per timestep).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0704/0704.3297 ...
And even if it did require infinite dimension, so what? You act like because it's infinite it can't be done (which, mathematically, just isn't true). Quantum encryption itself already requires about 2^1000 dimensions just to secure a key of length 128. - pinoyboy82, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1I can't wait for the Quantum Leap..... *smirk*
- ChristaMaria, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1http://chaospet.com/comics/2007-09-01-33.png
- Higgles, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Man, that is weird.
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1you cant divide by infinity. I defy you! I think this is way too nerdy, even for me...
- oneoverzero, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1well, if neither of those exist, then they're really more of first steps towards something else.
- NathanielJ, on 03/29/2008, -0/+1It makes no sense to compare cracking a crypto scheme and cracking a key distribution scheme, they're completely different things.
- StusGhost, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Question for all you nerds out there. Is this really uncrackable data?
- bfdonnelly, on 03/30/2008, -1/+2It is quantum entanglement. That's how quantum encryption works.
- NathanielJ, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1No, that's not how quantum encryption works. Quantum encryption works by putting states into superpositions -- entanglement doesn't come into the key distribution scheme anywhere.
- Lane, on 03/30/2008, -0/+1Awesome, so far were now 2/3 of the way there!
step 1) dissemble people atom by atom
step 2) send to location
step 3) reassembly
the 3rd step doesn't have to be perfect does it? come on, don't be picky... - TrinitronX, on 03/29/2008, -1/+2Unless of course someone finds a better way to view quantum events without disturbing them. If that happens, then the uncertainty principle goes out the door, and Schroedinger's cat will settle into one known state.
- hydroplane, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1May your next leap be the leap home...
- the13thzen, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1What the ***** did I just read?
- Goonder, on 03/29/2008, -2/+2I'm weary of such exaggerated claims about how relevant physics will be in the future.
Remember radar? Lasers? Nuclear bombs? These technologies did not need overstatement. - teamparadox, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Stargate here we come!
- Ramble, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1Don't be silly, the star gate is by Jupiter, not in orbit.
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/29/2008, -1/+1It could only be hacked in an infinite amount of dimensions.
- Shadowgamers, on 03/29/2008, -1/+0because I'm an idiot and I have no idea of the difference. Halp to be explaining plz. :[
- lamiaconfitor, on 03/29/2008, -2/+1Italian; I mispelled it. stoopid stoopid.
- Shadowgamers, on 03/29/2008, -4/+2"the only form of communication that could ensure beyond any doubt that there are no eavesdroppers"
"uncrackable"
Hasn't military grade encryption already been broken though? This shouldn't be any harder considering... -
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 