Chinese developing new unhackable Internet

[mr moose]

41 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

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?

Because they are sending the particles simultaneously to the source and destination points of the data transfer, if you intercept the particle anywhere else the other particle stops being entangled and halts the transfer.   How exactly they would do that is anyone's guess, becasue if I knew that I would be a particle physicist and not an internet forum pleb.

 

As I said in my first post, I would like to see this actually working, becasue until then it is all theoretical.

[vanished]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Because they are sending the particles simultaneously to the source and destination points of the data transfer, if you intercept the particle anywhere else the other particle stops being entangled and halts the transfer.   How exactly they would do that is anyone's guess, becasue if I knew that I would be a particle physicist and not an internet forum pleb.

 

As I said in my first post, I would like to see this actually working, becasue until then it is all theoretical.

But you can imagine how one could intercept the particle and not the data though, or (more importantly) the other way around, right?

[Drak3]

1 hour 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.

Except that no matter how hard you try to make something "unhackable" yet accessible, you can't. It is an impossibility. The only thing you can do is make it harder, so that hacking it, or at least developing tools to do it, takes longer.

What you described is not unhackable, and it's not a new concept, at all. The delivery method is, but ultimately, it can be hacked, and will be hacked.

If you can access it, you can hack it. That is an absolute. No exceptions to that rule.

[Squirrel724]

19 hours ago, Enderman said:

This is literally just two particles. Do you know what that means?

ONE bit. Just ONE.

An electrical wire can only carry one bit at a time as well. You know how they get around that issue? Sending one bit after another. It's called serial.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

There's not a quark of truth in your title. Pure clickbait. 

 

¿An experiment on entanglement? Great, let's write "10 things you didn't know about the UNHACKABLE Chinese internet". You won't believe number 7!

 

"Scientific" journalism at its worst. 

[Clanscorpia]

Why is Internet in this? Theyre Physicists researching Quantum Entanglement and its instantly internet? Sounds like some site I know... 

[AshleyAshes]

Guys, all the Sci-Fi asside, it's fundamentally understood that quantum entanglement can not be used to transmit 'classical' physical information, as in it can in no way be used for faster than light communication or any kind of communication at all.  When you read about quantum entanglement and 'information' it's not the kind of information that you and I would understand 'information' to be.  Though that confusion is why quantum entanglement is the basis for FTL communication, teleportation, and other things in science fiction.  But no scientist actually thinks that's what it does and that's not why they research the topic.

[Beskamir]

20 hours ago, Shreyas1 said:

Would be good 4 future mars and moon missions

How so? You realise this probably won't actually enable FTL communication right? Sending any information faster than light is basically impossible. That said maybe that'll change once we understand this stuff better.

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

There's not a quark of truth in your title. Pure clickbait. 

 

¿An experiment on entanglement? Great, let's write "10 things you didn't know about the UNHACKABLE Chinese internet". You won't believe number 7!

 

"Scientific" journalism at its worst. 

The title accurately reflects the article in the journal science.  It is what the scientists have said they are researching. Not to sure why you think you know better.

8 hours ago, Clanscorpia said:

Why is Internet in this? Theyre Physicists researching Quantum Entanglement and its instantly internet? Sounds like some site I know... 

If you had read the article you'd know why the word "internet" is used.

7 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

Guys, all the Sci-Fi asside, it's fundamentally understood that quantum entanglement can not be used to transmit 'classical' physical information, as in it can in no way be used for faster than light communication or any kind of communication at all.  When you read about quantum entanglement and 'information' it's not the kind of information that you and I would understand 'information' to be.  Though that confusion is why quantum entanglement is the basis for FTL communication, teleportation, and other things in science fiction.  But no scientist actually thinks that's what it does and that's not why they research the topic.

No one has said they are trying to send data via entanglement or faster than light. 

 

 

It appears none of you actually read the article, much less the linked source.

 

 

 

EDIT: I guess the important thing with stuff like this is to remember if you think you understand it, you most probably you don't. Thanks professor Moriarty. 

 

 

[SpaceGhostC2C]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

The title accurately reflects the article in the journal science.  It is what the scientists have said they are researching. Not to sure why you think you know better.

Now you are openly lying. "China developing unhackable internet" is nowhere near the Science article you don't even link (probably because, well, it won't say that China is developing the unhackable internet).

In fact, Science actually chooses a title that reflect, you know, that this was about an experiment in entanglement - just like I said:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/china-s-quantum-satellite-achieves-spooky-action-record-distance

Not sure why you think you know better... 

 

And of course the ultimate source also has no traces of your bullshit, although they may drop a few buzzwords to gain visibility:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6343/1140

 

 

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

If you had read the article you'd know why the word "internet" is used.

That, of course, makes your title totally accurate.

 

I mean, OK, I guess you deserve some credit for the amount of time and effort you can dedicate to trolling...

 

 

[Misanthrope]

Everybody's creating their own internet now: UK with no privacy or encryption, China with no hacking, Trump with no fucking sense of fairness at all, etc.

[AshleyAshes]

7 hours ago, mr moose said:

Thanks professor Moriarty. 

...Yes... I -am- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional criminal mastermind character.  Definitely!

 

I get the EFFECT you were going for but maybe next time go with 'Professor Sagan'?  Or 'Professor Hawking'?  There's always the standby 'Professor Einstein'?  A fictional criminal mastermind and the arch nemesis of Sherlock Holmes on the other hand, kinda doesn't have the same amount of 'Bazinga' ya know?

[MrDynamicMan]

On 2017-6-19 at 6:55 AM, 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.

 

0 ping connections, here we come. (in like, 50 years). 

 

The biggest issue I could see with using this for information is connecting and disconnecting. And of course the whole "impossible to get data out of" thing. 

[Star Platinum--The World]

我在中国都没听过这么先进的技术，你们想多了，你们国家也有战略忽悠局吧还是挺有意思的。我们只有墙

I've never heard such an advanced technology in China

We only have walls

We call it 金盾工程（the olden shield project）

interesting

 

 

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

...Yes... I -am- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional criminal mastermind character.  Definitely!

 

I get the EFFECT you were going for but maybe next time go with 'Professor Sagan'?  Or 'Professor Hawking'?  There's always the standby 'Professor Einstein'?  A fictional criminal mastermind and the arch nemesis of Sherlock Holmes on the other hand, kinda doesn't have the same amount of 'Bazinga' ya know?

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/physics/people/philip.moriarty

He was the one who said if you think you understand this, you don't.

Making assumptions then judging someone on that while offering advice doesn't add to the conversation.

 

 

However I do disagree with a professor becasue I think this quote below applies to most people and not a less.

 

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/people/interview-philip-moriarty-university-of-nottingham
 

Quote

 

physics is conceptually challenging, there’s an awful lot you really have to mull over for a [long time] before some of it clicks. We can, if we’re not careful, set up a culture whereby you watch this two- or three-minute video and think: I’m an expert.

 

 

That's for all those who want to make absolute statements about a component of science that is as much abstract as it measurable.

 

9 hours ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Now you are openly lying. "China developing unhackable internet" is nowhere near the Science article you don't even link (probably because, well, it won't say that China is developing the unhackable internet).

In fact, Science actually chooses a title that reflect, you know, that this was about an experiment in entanglement - just like I said:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/china-s-quantum-satellite-achieves-spooky-action-record-distance

Not sure why you think you know better... 

 

And of course the ultimate source also has no traces of your bullshit, although they may drop a few buzzwords to gain visibility:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6343/1140

 

 

That, of course, makes your title totally accurate.

 

I mean, OK, I guess you deserve some credit for the amount of time and effort you can dedicate to trolling...

 

 

Tee original article I linked states it quite clearly, that is the article I linked for everyone to read,  I pointed to the science article for those who felt the science was being misrepresented.   Besides that the science article mentions networks and encrypted communication anyway:

Quote

A network of satellites could someday connect the quantum computers being designed in labs worldwide.

 

Quote

 

Beyond the fundamental result, such experiments also point to the possibility of hack-proof communications. Long strings of entangled photons, shared between distant locations, can be "quantum keys" that secure communications. Anyone trying to eavesdrop on a quantum-encrypted message would disrupt the shared key, alerting everyone to a compromised channel.

 

 

How do you propose to transmit an encrypted message without a network?  You know what we call connected networks?  Don't just assume because the word internet was used it refers only to the network your ISP connects to.  

 

You start with a derogatory post, don't even read the article or if you did you clearly missed the bits I had already drawn attention to then Accuse me of trolling.  You do realise it's possible to have an opinion or question something without being derogatory or accusing people of lying?

 

EDIT: if you still think I am lying and trolling then just report the thread to a mod and move on.

 

EDIT2: I see the problem my line in that post was supposed to read: "The title accurately reflects the article linked and the journal science is their source".    I apologize for that.  However my point still stands, that is the direction they are heading and it is the scientists who are making claims about using it as encryption keys for communication. 

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, MrDynamicMan said:

0 ping connections, here we come. (in like, 50 years). 

 

The biggest issue I could see with using this for information is connecting and disconnecting. And of course the whole "impossible to get data out of" thing. 

Well, I believe when it comes to concepts as conceptually challenging as quantum physics, I'll just keep an open mind and leave the science to scientists.

 

 

[Juanitology]

On 6/19/2017 at 1:44 AM, mr moose said:

The Chinese launched a Quantum satellite in August and generated a pair of entangled particles, then using a laser they sent them back to earth to two separate locations 1200Km apart.  This is the largest distance the quantum phenomena has been shown to remain tangled.

 

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/china-sets-new-record-for-quantum-entanglement-en-route-to-build-new-communication-network/news-story/e528da0cf68b2e63bbe093cab49ec507

 

I'd personally prefer to know idf they have actually managed to send any data using the method, because once they do it will be the first demonstration of an un-hackable data connection.

 

 

 

All hype?  Not too sure but it was published in the journal science and scientists from around the world have stated this is possible and has been done on smaller scales. 

 

My take: Imagine setting up your own data link that cannot be spied on at all.  Or better yet imagine instant data transfer over huge (interplanetary) distances.

My question is, if this really does work, then why do sci-fi shows like The Expanse and movies like Interstellar and Passengers still show communications having a time lag of the speed of light?

 

Wouldn't we have figured out how to transfer information through quantum entanglement by the time we had the technology for interstellar travel?

[Jito463]

2 hours ago, Terodius said:

My question is, if this really does work, then why do sci-fi shows like The Expanse and movies like Interstellar and Passengers still show communications having a time lag of the speed of light?

Wouldn't we have figured out how to transfer information through quantum entanglement by the time we had the technology for interstellar travel?

I really hope this was meant to be funny....otherwise, it's just sad.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Terodius said:

My question is, if this really does work, then why do sci-fi shows like The Expanse and movies like Interstellar and Passengers still show communications having a time lag of the speed of light?

 

Wouldn't we have figured out how to transfer information through quantum entanglement by the time we had the technology for interstellar travel?

It doesn't work. not at the moment anyway.