Chinese developing new unhackable Internet

[captain_to_fire]

Just now, mr moose said:

No,  at the moment it will only secure your connection,  we have to wait for other breakthroughs in this tech for the goods stuff like instant data transfer.

So basically it's a glorified "Li-Fi" 

[leadeater]

37 minutes ago, Enderman said:

And guess what? you can't even use it for anything because when measured it changes and it is impossible to know what it was before measuring.

 

Quote

The paradox is that a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously, before any information about the measurement result could have been communicated to the other particle (assuming that information cannot travel faster than light) and hence assured the "proper" outcome of the measurement of the other part of the entangled pair. In the Copenhagen interpretation, the result of a spin measurement on one of the particles is a collapse into a state in which each particle has a definite spin (either up or down) along the axis of measurement. The outcome is taken to be random, with each possibility having a probability of 50%. However, if both spins are measured along the same axis, they are found to be anti-correlated. This means that the random outcome of the measurement made on one particle seems to have been transmitted to the other, so that it can make the "right choice" when it too is measured.[32]

 

The distance and timing of the measurements can be chosen so as to make the interval between the two measurements spacelike, hence, any causal effect connecting the events would have to travel faster than light. According to the principles of special relativity, it is not possible for any information to travel between two such measuring events. It is not even possible to say which of the measurements came first. For two spacelike separated events x1 and x2 there are inertial frames in which x1 is first and others in which x2 is first. Therefore, the correlation between the two measurements cannot be explained as one measurement determining the other: different observers would disagree about the role of cause and effect.

Kinda yes kinda no, you can measure it.

[laminutederire]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I never said this was an internet, My title reflects the article I linked which claims the Chinese are working on an unhackable internet.  Please read before you contradict.

 

 

 

I know my understanding of quantum physics is a little rough, but you do realise they had to measure it to prove it was entangled right?  

From my understanding, entanglement basically mean that the quantum state of both particules are to be seen with one another. You can then see the effect of entanglement when you measure the state of one particule, which will set its function to a given value. However, since the particles are entangled, the second particule may change of state immediately since measuring the first one measure the two particules set, measuring them both at the same time.

As other have pointed out, knowing the exact probabilistic state of particules. That makes it unusable for quantum computers. You'd have the risk of flipping a bit somewhere along the process thus changing the key. There are error coding codes, but they'd become unpractical if the probability of getting many bit flip is non negligible.

 

Sending photon successions without even one being measured is absolutely non trivial, and if possible may require insane amounts of money just to make one channel. That aside, you'd need a direct channel for it to work, as going through one intermediate node would break the entanglement.

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

Kinda yes kinda no, you can measure it.

Yes you can measure it, I already said that, but it's not useful to know what a random bit is in two locations at the same time, at least not for the application of an internet.

For an internet you need to be able to CHOOSE what the outcome will be (eg pick 0 or 1), then SEND that to the other location (so the other location gets the message).

 

If you would like to explain to me how knowing a random value in two places at once allows for any sort of "communication" then I'd be glad to listen.

[leadeater]

Just now, Enderman said:

Yes you can measure it, I already said that, but it's not useful to know what a random bit is in two locations at the same time, at least not for the application of an internet.

For an internet you need to be able to CHOOSE what the outcome will be (eg pick 0 or 1), then SEND that to the other location (so the other location gets the message).

 

If you would like to explain to me how knowing a random value in two places at once allows for any sort of "communication" then I'd be glad to listen.

Yea I was delayed getting the same quote you did, was making sure I was reading it right etc.

[Enderman]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea I was delayed getting the same quote you did, was making sure I was reading it right etc.

I think we can classify this as another one of those "reporter tries to make minor scientific test into an unrealistic article that mainstream people will find interesting" stories.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

Yes you can measure it, I already said that, but it's not useful to know what a random bit is in two locations at the same time, at least not for the application of an internet.

For an internet you need to be able to CHOOSE what the outcome will be (eg pick 0 or 1), then SEND that to the other location (so the other location gets the message).

 

If you would like to explain to me how knowing a random value in two places at once allows for any sort of "communication" then I'd be glad to listen.

I think you need to read the article again.   It doesn't say information is being transmitted via the entanglement.  It doesn't even claim they can or are trying to.

 

Please tell me where you are getting the idea that they are claiming this.

[leadeater]

Just now, Enderman said:

I think we can classify this as another one of those "reporter tries to make minor scientific test into an article that mainstream people will find interesting" stories.

Quantum theory proved.

 

[Enderman]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think you need to read the article again.   It doesn't say information is being transmitted via the entanglement.  It doesn't even claim they can or are trying to.

 

Please tell me where you are getting the idea that they are claiming this.

 

 

Maybe you didn't read your own post?

 

"The reason it can’t be hacked is because the information carried in the quantum state of a particle cannot be measured or cloned without destroying the information itself."

 

I already explained how entanglement will be useless for internet and why it's unhackable because neither you not the hacker know what information there is.

[Enderman]

Ok, I read most of the article, and it sucks. Honestly it just sounds to me like the reporter has no idea what he's talking about.

 

The satellite that they were using is literally just a laser to transmit data optically. Basically like fiber optic internet but by using line of sight rather than a fiber optic.

 

The quantum phenomena is just a byproduct that they measured, they probably are just sending the information the normal way, by pulsing the laser on and off to send 0s and 1s.

 

The reporter made it sound like the quantum phenomena is what the laser was for, transmitting information, which would be completely incorrect.

 

Assuming it is just a basic laser satellite that sends data like a fiber optic, it will be 100% hackable.

 

Also, congrats to me for passing 40000 posts by trying to decipher this shitty news.com journalism

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

 

 

Maybe you didn't read your own post?

 

"The reason it can’t be hacked is because the information carried in the quantum state of a particle cannot be measured or cloned without destroying the information itself."

 

I already explained how entanglement will be useless for internet and why it's unhackable because neither you not the hacker know what information there is.

That's it?  That does not say the quantum entangled particles are carrying the data.  It only says any information they hold can't be measured or cloned.   The article actually talks about using that to create an unhackable network not that it is the network.

 

 

Quote

"It's a huge, major achievement," says Thomas Jennewein, a physicist at the University of Waterloo in Canada.

Quote

however, physicists began testing the effect over increasing distances. In 2015, the most sophisticated of these tests, which involved measuring entangled electrons 1.3 kilometers apart, showed once again that spooky action is real.

Quote

. Many physicists have dreamed instead of using satellites to send quantum information through the near-vacuum of space. "Once you have satellites distributing your quantum signals throughout the globe, you've done it," says Verónica Fernández Mármol, a physicist at the Spanish National Research Council in Madrid. "You've leapfrogged all the problems you have with losses in fibers."

 

It's not just the media you are saying have no idea what they are talking about, it's three different professors of quantum physics from around the world.

 

 

What is proposed may be unrealized, but you should at least take the time to properly understand what has been said and by whom before contradicting everyone and telling them why they are wrong.

 

 

[Enderman]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's it?  That does not say the quantum entangled particles are carrying the data.  It only says any information they hold can't be measured or cloned.   The article actually talks about using that to create an unhackable network not that it is the network.

In English, putting that quote about quantum "information" in a topic about internet, implies that that quantum "information" is what is being transmitted to create an internet.

Probably not your fault, just the bad journalist.

 

This should be two separate topics. One is that they broke a record for quantum entanglement (good for them) and one that they are testing lasers on satellites to transmit data, just like in fiber optics.

 

This is NOT using quantum entanglement for any kind of data transmission, which is what it seems like the reporter believes.

The laser satellite is not unhackable, just the quantum entanglement is since it is literally just a random value.

You can't know the outcome of rolling a dice, neither can a hacker, because it's random.

 

Anyone who understands how computers work will know that you cannot use random values to transmit data or make an internet.

That would be like drawing random lines on a piece of paper and hoping your friend can decipher it and know what you were thinking.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

This is NOT using quantum entanglement for any kind of data transmission, which is what it seems like the reporter believes.

The laser satellite is not unhackable, just the quantum entanglement is since it is literally just a random value.

 

 

Correct, the idea is that they can use the quantum particle as a security key, becasue once one end is hacked the other end knows instantly and ceases all data transfer.

 

Would that possability not be something you'd be excited about?

 

 

[Enderman]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Correct, the idea is that they can use the quantum particle as a security key, becasue once one end is hacked the other end knows instantly and ceases all data transfer.

 

Would that possability not be something you'd be excited about?

That's starting to make a bit more sense, yeah, but how would one end know the other is hacked?

If one side observes the spin, then the other side observes the opposite spin. There really isn't anything that would indicate a hack...

 

I still think quantum entanglement would be more useful for teleportation, as seen here: https://www.ucalgary.ca/utoday/issue/2016-09-20/beam-me-scotty-researchers-teleport-particle-light-six-kilometres

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Enderman said:

That's starting to make a bit more sense, yeah, but how would one end know the other is hacked?

If one side observes the spin, then the other side observes the opposite spin. There really isn't anything that would indicate a hack...

 

I don't know, I'll leave that bit to the scientists.   

 

I'm not stepping insider a transporter, it will steal my soul. 

[The Benjamins]

As a gamer imagine the 0ms delay to game servers around the world.

[TidaLWaveZ]

Spooky.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Technology baby!

 

This resonates to be quitw advanced and expensive, so i love it :D.

[Ryujin2003]

How is this "unhackable"? You could pitch the same argument for our "internet". You don't hack the internet, you put malicious software on the end-user device. The individual device is "hacked", not the internet.

 

Gathering data that is being beamed through the air isn't hacking. It's called signals collection. There is a difference.

 

This tech sounds pretty cool, and I see how it can be beneficial, but the title and wording of the article is completely misleading to the average user.

[The Benjamins]

1 hour ago, huilun02 said:

Well this wont work for 'internet' because internet means a publicly accessible network that can serve multiple clients simultaneously. However if we can develop a way to control the particle state and flip it 1000 times a second, there you have a 1gbit p2p connection that can span great distances without radio and physical medium limitations. 

do you mean 1,000,000,000 times a second for 1Gbps.

 

the other cool thing is that it is instant so a near 0ms response time at any distance.

[Stefan1024]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

how?  does the internet not use networks?

 

why impractical for large data sets, they haven't even transferred data yet, for all we know it might be the next big thing to put fibre optics to bed.

 

If you can transmit entangled Photonen,  you can also transmit data, that's an easy additional task. But the effort needed to transmit such a pait is ver high (read very expensove), so it's not economical so send your cat video around the world in this way. Also the current method only works at night.

[BuckGup]

How much energy or money does it take to entangle particle?

[Drak3]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

you can measure it.

If you can access it, you can hack it.

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, Drak3 said:

If you can access it, you can hack it.

The bit you can access is not the bit that contains the information.  Think of the entangled particles as a trip wire guarding the encrypted data, as soon as you try to access the key for the data the trip wire instantly disables the machines sending the data and key with it.  That is the idea behind it being unhackable.

[vanished]

10 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The bit you can access is not the bit that contains the information.  Think of the entangled particles as a trip wire guarding the encrypted data, as soon as you try to access the key for the data the trip wire instantly disables the machines sending the data and key with it.  That is the idea behind it being unhackable.

I don't see how that could possibly work.  How could you make these particles so integral to the transfer of the data that they can't be separated without actually using the particles to transmit it?