Slashdot Mirror

No - both prime factorization and discrete logarithms can be done in polynomial time with a quantum computer.

So, how many cases of capitalisation of "laser" do you find in titles of recent preprints? I can't find a single one. (Well, one in a journal name where the complete journal name is in uppercase, but that doesn't count, of course).

The Ars Technica article links to the paper on the Nature web site, where it's paywalled. The authors have posted the article here, where you can access it without paying.

The Ars summary is also inaccurate.

First off, this paper does not "topple Heisenberg's uncertainty principle." If you look at the paper, equation (1) is the Heisenberg uncertainty relation, while equation (2) is a similar, but different, uncertainty relation. The paper claims to demonstrate a violation of (2), not (1). Since (1) was proved mathematically 80 years ago based on standard quantum mechanics, disproving it would require either detecting an error in the original proof (which the authors don't claim to have done) or doing the disproof using some foundational theory other than standard quantum mechanics (which the authors didn't do).

And in my opinion the authors' depiction of their own result is an extreme over-selling of what it really says. On p. 1 of the paper, they interpret equation (2) in terms of a game in which Bob tries to predict something as accurately as possible -- more accurately than permitted by (2). To accomplish this, they have Bob store his prediction in a quantum memory device. The quantum memory device is in a superposition of states, sort of like Schrodinger's cat. The memory is partially in a state where it makes prediction P, and partially in a state where it makes a different prediction Q. Only when you read out the memory later do you force the memory to collapse its wavefunction into either state P or state Q. It seems to me that by any reasonable standard, this is not really a prediction at all. If you redefine "prediction" to mean something this weak, then you get all kinds of silly possibilities. For instance, I could entangle my quantum memory's wavefunction with the quantum state of a uranium nucleus, in such a way that I "predict" when the nucleus will decay. Well, I haven't really found a technology for predicting when the nucleus will decay; all I've done is weaken the definition of "predict."

You are right. I know the paper well since I work in this area, and the article and summary are VERY misleading. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is perfectly safe as originally articulated -- this is merely a rephrasing of it, and an extension of it. It is a nice paper, but I wish journalists wouldn't try to sensationalise things by saying Einstein/Newton/Heisenberg/CowboyNeal is wrong... Here, I suspect the authors are slightly to blame for this -- note the peer-reviewed article is much more conservative and careful than arxiv version (which is perhaps what led to the misleading popular science article): http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nphys1734.html http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph0909.0950

For those interested, the preprint of the Nature article can be found at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.0950

However, I don't really see what the fuzz is about. What they are in fact demonstrating is a relationship between conditional von Neumann entropies, which they claim is a measure of "uncertainty" (it is in a specific meaning of the word "uncertainty"). However, there is a difference between von Neumann entropy and the variance of a physical observable as used in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. On the other hand, if you label a physical property such as entropy "uncertainty" and demonstrate a relationship between those entropies, then you can indeed call that an "uncertainty relation" but that's just a cheap way of attracting attention.

Also, I am not sure if it is possible to obtain the Heisenberg uncertainty relation from their equation. I would expect that, for example by entering pure, disentangled states in their equation, that Heisenberg should be recoverable (because of course, Heisenberg also applies to pure states). I don't immediately see how that can happen since the von Neumann entropy for a pure state is zero. Perhaps I am just missing something and perhaps my QM is a bit rusty :).

No one is doubting Global Warming.

That's simply not true. There's a large contingency of folks who are outright denying even the temp rises. They're typically the mindless followers of Beck & Limbaugh.

By "solar weather theory" are you referring to the false arguments that AGW is caused by cosmic rays and/or temps are increasing on other planets? If so, no problem. Here's 34 different scientific papers that refute each aspect of them. :)

So, you ready to change your business model now?

No one is doubting Global Warming.

That's simply not true. There's a large contingency of folks who are outright denying even the temp rises. They're typically the mindless followers of Beck & Limbaugh.

By "solar weather theory" are you referring to the false arguments that AGW is caused by cosmic rays and/or temps are increasing on other planets? If so, no problem. Here's 34 different scientific papers that refute each aspect of them. :)

So, you ready to change your business model now?

The problem is that the data (figure 2 in the arxiv paper - everyone should check this out btw)...

Direct link, for the lazy: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1007.2736v1. Figure 2, top right corner of page 3.

He's merely putting this out in the wild to get feedback from other researchers in the field (which is solely what Arxiv is used for by serious researchers, not as a publication destination).

Speaking as a junior researcher, I use Arxiv as a publication destination so that people can find my papers, and real journals to prove that they're worthwhile (ie, that they've passed peer review). The real journals might as well not even publish them, almost - just so long as they confirm that a paper was submitted and accepted.

As already mentioned, there is the possibility that we're the first [in our light cone].

So you're saying he posted this bunk to call attention to his other 129 decent, well-written articles? Could be. It would be a clever strategy.

However, check out this paper, "Almost Certain Escape From Black Holes." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0406/0406205v1.pdf

I can't even begin to list all the things wrong with this paper. And I'm not just going by the title. Singularities, Hawking radiation, final states, the information paradox...if you believe in all of these things, you can construct a theory that uses them all. But making them work together doesn't mean that any of them exist in the first place.

Black holes are the simplest objects in the universe. They have two variables - mass and spin. They do not spit things out, nor are they giant computers. They are not tunnels to somewhere else. They do not break any laws, and they are not weird. No new physics is required to understand them, because the physics that created them - mass and gravity - are right in front of us.

This guy is clearly well-read and articulate. But you can be articulate and be wrong if your assumptions are faulty.

Why would a tenured MIT professor give it up to switch departments? The same author has 129 papers on the quant-ph section of the arXiv, going back to 1996. He's been working in this field for quite a while.

You are right of-course, however here is a good example why it is still possible to get something of value from ArXiv before you can get it from anywhere else.

Here is the link to the research paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.3284

To sum it up, this article is probably sensationalist psuedoscience and there is nothing to see here.

Melott is a perfectly respectable palaeontologist ; Bambach I've read less of. But having RTFP, I don't find it hugely convincing, nor hugely badly presented. Without spending a few days at least on reading up the background and working the statistics myself, I remain unconvinced in either way. (Which in no way reflects on Melott, Bambach, or Torbjorn Larsson.)
Executive summary : different workers can't agree on whether there is any significant periodicity to extinction events (that hasn't changed in the 25 years that I've been listening to this discussion) ; amongst those who think that there is a periodicity, there is only a weak majority putting the period at ~27Ma over those claiming ~11Ma or ~50Ma (another sign that the raw evidence isn't terribly strong).

Without even a good estimate of the periodicity (if there is one), then trying to work out the causative mechanism is resting a hypothesis on a house of cards built on a sand castle in the Bay of Fundy. Which might make an interesting spectator sport, but not a terribly successful career.

Eh, you're being a little quick to dismiss things. A third author typically had, at the very least, some meaningful role in the research that was done, and is a full member of whatever collaboration did it. (And probably has a Ph.D., or is working on one.)

I'm an associate member of a collaboration, and as such I make it onto the authors list for various little announcements they put out, but although I take a lot of the data, I'm not as involved in analyzing what it all means (I'm still shy of a M.Sc) so I usually just wind up in the "thanks to..." part at the end of real papers. :)

Radio and x-ray images in their astro-ph preprint.

erm.... what about actually ANSWERING what was put to you earlier and you dodged it eh?

what about the CRU leaks that showed , without a shadow of a doubt the sheer scalke of the gaming of the numbers and the sheer scale of the collusion in that? ANSWER IT DON'T DODGE IT!!

also what do YOU mr cyberax have to say to the fact that global warming thery is at odds with the laws of thermodynamics???

full report here in pdf

so cyberax answer those two points....... save me the preachy bollocks and just answer PROPERLY that which is put to you

"TeX is a small market" doesn't make sense. TeX, LaTeX and other derivatives are free, people use them as they see fit. Engineers do not need to write a lot of equations; heck, I have physics teachers who use word because they are too old to learn latex, and they haven't really had something complicated to write (experimental physics).

See this link for a good presentation of what TeX can actually do http://nitens.org/taraborelli/latex . For arts and stuff.
Furthermore, consider that there are scientists who have to write equations as fast as normal text, because their normal text IS equations --- see this article for instance http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0044 .

TeX is also a systematic system of writing. That means stuff like sympy (http://code.google.com/p/sympy/), maxima (http://maxima.sourceforge.net/), GiNaC (http://www.ginac.de/) and others can be used to make complicated symbolic computations and then output them automatically in a TeX file. Do you realize what this means in terms of productivity?

Anyway, my point is not to turn you into a TeX enthuziast. But, if you hear someone say that TeX is getting used more and more, don't act like we're just a couple of old farts talking about our half forgotten youth, because it really makes you look bad.

The actual printed publication of 1RXS 1609 came out after that of Formalhaut but the results came up earlier. The reason being that Science and Nature (Formalhaut's was published in Science) have a much quicker turn around from the time the paper is initially submitted to the point where it comes out of press (it depends but it can be something like a month), whereas more specialized journals like the Astrophysical Journal in which 1RXS 1609's was published are extremely long (several months). Of course, no one in the field waits for the printed paper; typically they are put on ArXiV way before, most of the time after they have been accepted so that the authors know it has been referred and won't be modified further (there are still a few months between the time the paper gets accepted and it gets published). So, the 1RXS 1609 discovery came out and made up the headlines before, though again everything can be argued and I personally think it's pretty much a tie game. Bottom line, I don't say that Phil is all wrong, all I'm saying is that things are a bit more complicated that they look like. I hope it can help you understand. Cheers.

Hubble has better resolution at visible wavelengths, but remember we're seeing the planet's thermal radiation and not reflected (visible) light -- so the planet is over 10 times fainter in the visible than at at infrared wavelengths (Figure 6 in the paper). Hubble can also see into the infrared, but because it is smaller than the largest ground-based telescopes Hubble does not offer the best resolution in the infrared.

The Greenberg et al 2002 paper says that CPT violations imply theories that are not Lorentz invariant, but also that :

Theories that violate CPT by having different particle and antiparticle masses must be nonlocal.

Now, the various EPR tests have shown that quantum mechanics cannot have a local hidden variable theory. So, if these results are true, I would expect to see a resurgence of hidden variable theories, of a nonlocal nature. Maybe they can even be clever and figure out how to how to do it in a way that preserves causality (as nonlocal theories in general imply that causality violations - i.e., time travel into the past - are possible.

This is the clearest (if a little oversimplified) layman's illustration I've seen of what was proven in this paper.

Not directly. IceCube in fact detects the Cherenkov radiation emitted by high energy muons when travelling on ice. It works as a neutrino detector because muons, despite having quite a long range, can't travel through the Earth; so a muon coming from "below" was necessarily created near the detector, and the only particle that exists freely, can cross the Earth and has a high enough cross section for muon creation is a muon-neutrino. Neutralinos can create muons through some processes in some models, but the effect would be completely obfuscated by neutrino-induced events.

However, they can detect neutralinos (and other dark matter particles) indirectly. For a given particle to be considered as a dark matter candidate, it needs to be affected by gravitational fields. Therefore, any dark matter particle would accumulate on any large gravitational field, such as the galaxy centre or the Sun. In most models (and certainly for neutralinos), two dark matter particles could annihilate mutually, creating other, less massive particles; in almost every one of those decay modes, there are neutrinos in the final state. So, if the dark matter really exists and it's composed of neutralinos, we predict a flux of neutrinos coming from the Sun (with an energy well above those that come from the normal nuclear fusion), from the galaxy centre, and even from the centre of the Earth. These fluxes (or at least the one from the Sun) can be detected given enough time, at least for some possible dark matter models. Halzen and Hooper have a very good paper on this (Halzen, BTW, is one of the top heads for IceCube).

arXiv

One slightly longer "word" arXiv.org/help/endorsement.

You will likely need to be endorsed by a qualified endorser before they will accept your paper. So you will first have to find an endorser willing to endorse you.

http://standards.ieee.org/guides/style/ is the page with the IEEE style guides.

http://standards.ieee.org/guides/style/2009_Style_Manual.pdf is the guide itself.

If your paper agrees with this it shouldn't be too hard to change it later to fit into the particular style requirement of the final journal.

You can also go to http://arxiv.org/ and read some of the papers in the Math or Computing Science sections closest to your topic to see the styles in the field.

arXiv

I'm a developer ... I'm looking into something more formal like a research paper.

LaTeX. Here's a template (you wanted article.ltx). Some distributions of LaTeX come with templates as well. Here's a quick guide (PDF).

I've no experience on those, not even read a complete one, so my first question is what resources do you recommend to learn how to write one?

The template will make you get the basics right. The most basic I've seen are Title, Abstract, Sections, Conclusion, References. It's easy (I taught myself in college) and the production value of LaTeX gives you an instant artificially inflated level of credibility.

And even after I write it I can't expect to be published by Science or other high-profile publications.

Why the hell not? Just do it up and see what happens!

So where should I send it to make it known by people on the respective fields and be taken seriously?

Sounds like you should do some research on arxiv, a prepublication center where you can find some of the best stuff as well as absolute drivel. I would need to hear more about your method to ensure it's indeed an algorithm worthy of publication but I guess you would put that in Data Structures and Algorithms? But why stop there? Why don't you put it on arxiv and blog about it? Why don't you send out e-mails with the arxiv link to open source projects and commercial entities suggesting the use of your algorithm? I'd imagine the USGS would be interested in hearing from you. Sure that's all very wishful thinking but if you've got what you say you've got, why not? At the very least you'll learn why your idea isn't good enough to catch eyeballs.

I will caveat all this with the brutish reality of capital and give you a very unpopular option. Software algorithms are currently considered intellectual property by the United States government and several other countries. You could apply for a patent and then attempt to license your algorithm to companies like ESRI and Google or the USGS. You're on your own if this is what you're aiming for.

I'm a developer ... I'm looking into something more formal like a research paper.

LaTeX. Here's a template (you wanted article.ltx). Some distributions of LaTeX come with templates as well. Here's a quick guide (PDF).

I've no experience on those, not even read a complete one, so my first question is what resources do you recommend to learn how to write one?

The template will make you get the basics right. The most basic I've seen are Title, Abstract, Sections, Conclusion, References. It's easy (I taught myself in college) and the production value of LaTeX gives you an instant artificially inflated level of credibility.

And even after I write it I can't expect to be published by Science or other high-profile publications.

Why the hell not? Just do it up and see what happens!

So where should I send it to make it known by people on the respective fields and be taken seriously?

Sounds like you should do some research on arxiv, a prepublication center where you can find some of the best stuff as well as absolute drivel. I would need to hear more about your method to ensure it's indeed an algorithm worthy of publication but I guess you would put that in Data Structures and Algorithms? But why stop there? Why don't you put it on arxiv and blog about it? Why don't you send out e-mails with the arxiv link to open source projects and commercial entities suggesting the use of your algorithm? I'd imagine the USGS would be interested in hearing from you. Sure that's all very wishful thinking but if you've got what you say you've got, why not? At the very least you'll learn why your idea isn't good enough to catch eyeballs.

I will caveat all this with the brutish reality of capital and give you a very unpopular option. Software algorithms are currently considered intellectual property by the United States government and several other countries. You could apply for a patent and then attempt to license your algorithm to companies like ESRI and Google or the USGS. You're on your own if this is what you're aiming for.

I'm a developer ... I'm looking into something more formal like a research paper.

LaTeX. Here's a template (you wanted article.ltx). Some distributions of LaTeX come with templates as well. Here's a quick guide (PDF).

I've no experience on those, not even read a complete one, so my first question is what resources do you recommend to learn how to write one?

The template will make you get the basics right. The most basic I've seen are Title, Abstract, Sections, Conclusion, References. It's easy (I taught myself in college) and the production value of LaTeX gives you an instant artificially inflated level of credibility.

And even after I write it I can't expect to be published by Science or other high-profile publications.

Why the hell not? Just do it up and see what happens!

So where should I send it to make it known by people on the respective fields and be taken seriously?

Sounds like you should do some research on arxiv, a prepublication center where you can find some of the best stuff as well as absolute drivel. I would need to hear more about your method to ensure it's indeed an algorithm worthy of publication but I guess you would put that in Data Structures and Algorithms? But why stop there? Why don't you put it on arxiv and blog about it? Why don't you send out e-mails with the arxiv link to open source projects and commercial entities suggesting the use of your algorithm? I'd imagine the USGS would be interested in hearing from you. Sure that's all very wishful thinking but if you've got what you say you've got, why not? At the very least you'll learn why your idea isn't good enough to catch eyeballs.

I will caveat all this with the brutish reality of capital and give you a very unpopular option. Software algorithms are currently considered intellectual property by the United States government and several other countries. You could apply for a patent and then attempt to license your algorithm to companies like ESRI and Google or the USGS. You're on your own if this is what you're aiming for.

It can infer the direction a neutrino came from, so (given enough time) it can make "images". In fact, they've seen the moon already, as a deficit of neutrinos coming from the moon's direction. It is a telescope, just one that doesn't "see" photons and that you don't have to point at a target to see it.

Unfortunately, atheism doesn't make the world rational.

No, it doesn't. But it's a prerequisite for a rational world.

This is quite understandable: human processing capacity is limited by the brain size...

Maybe in an absolute sense, but the efficiency of that processing can scale wildly. We have the same brain size as did our ancestors from thousands of years ago (roughly), but consider just how much better we have become at all sorts of processing. As just one example, we have turned the analysis of uncertainty into a very precise science and can now combine a huge number of measurements that, by themselves, have little value into statements like "It is 99.7% certain that X is better than Y." (I refer, of course, to the modern science of statistics. As just one example of how far we go these days in quantifying uncertainty, see http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.2211.)

Whereas in medieval times artisans trying to build a cathedral had to go by rules of thumb and intuition (which they were quite good at, but the things still fell down regularly), we now have come up with precise ways of measuring the strength of materials and our buildings only very rarely fall down now due to design failures.

It's like bubble-sort vs. quicksort: even running on the same CPU there is a lot of room for improvement in algorithms, and that's what the development of human culture buys you. And we're not done yet.

An actual Spitzer image of L1448 is here: http://www.astro.lsa.umich.edu/~jjtobin/images/L1448.jpg and the preprint of the Astrophysical Journal paper is located here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.2443

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~epsas/dynamics/vortex/structure.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0404004
http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/A_self_organised_structure_for_the_tornado.html
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/21580.pdf
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/594363/19397/Tornadic-thunderstorm-The-rotating-updraft-that-produces-the-tornado-extends
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/edwards/hcr3may.htm

Thanks! I never thought of googling it!

Now why didn't Galileo just read the documentation Aristotle had written on gravitation? He could have avoided some nasty arguments with the pope! Or why didn't Einstein read what Lorenz had written on relativity? Or why did Schockley, Bardeen, and Brattain invent the transistor? Vacuum tubes were extremely well documented in 1947. I could go on all night.

Sigh. I guess 640 kbytes will always be enough for somebody...

Is google down in your area:

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~epsas/dynamics/vortex/structure.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0404004
http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/A_self_organised_structure_for_the_tornado.html
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/21580.pdf
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic-art/594363/19397/Tornadic-thunderstorm-The-rotating-updraft-that-produces-the-tornado-extends
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/publications/edwards/hcr3may.htm

You want to read this paper: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.1628 (blog post about it: http://arxivblog.com/?p=1297)

He does an interesting discussion on how to narrow the search down, although its gets scifi-ish now and then.

When particles are entangled, if you move one the other moves with no outside influence - the action is instantaneous and distance doesn't matter.

No -- if you move one particle, the other doesn't move instantly. Entanglement is much more subtle than that; in fact, it's hard to explain what exactly is shared between the particles without using math. One point is important, though: it's not possible to send information faster than light using quantum entanglement. So, all that talk about "instantaneous" reaction is a little misleading.

The hard part right now is keeping them entangled at a distance - the further apart you move the particles the harder it is to keep them from losing their entanglement.

The difficulty in maintaining (quantum) coherence has nothing to do with the distance between the particles. It's just that the particles must be kept completely isolated from everything else -- any interaction with anything else breaks the entanglement.

So long as they are actually entangled, though, distance doesn't introduce any kind of delay in the reaction of one particle to another.

Well, sure, for a suitable definition of "reaction". And remember it's a one time deal: once you interact with one of the particles, the other one suffers the "reaction" and then the entanglement is broken.

If they could get it to work across the world it would be phenomenal, but so far they've only managed a few feet.

Actually, it has been done over a few kilometers, see for example this paper.

Not really a journal: http://arxiv.org/

The paper discussing this work is http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.2033. They appear to be using a pretty standard neural network approach (disclaimer: I don't have much background in neural nets at all. I'm just going off of how they were described in the last class I took that discussed them.) This is part of a very general pattern where programs have done a lot of work that we would think could only be done by people. Other examples include the computerized proof of the Robbins conjecturehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_conjecture. TFA lists a few examples as well which are in more applied areas.

Publishers are misusing copyright laws here too and asking exorbitant prices for publications. Fortunately there is a way out: http://arxiv.org/ , which is becomming more and more popular.

I am an astrophysicist/astronomer, and I can vouch for that as a field in which amateurs still play a major role. Hell, my first paper on which I was the first author was something that anyone with a decent set of programming skills and a mild knowledge of astronomy could do - the trick was knowing that it needed to be done. As far as how to get involved, I have several suggestions.

1. Go back to school, formally or informally. If you have a university with an astronomy or physics department, get involved there, perhaps by taking a class or two part time. This serves a threefold purpose. The most obvious is that it is a great opportunity to learn the basics. Second, it will give you access to university resources, such as library (including journals and databases online!) access, computer access, and sometimes telescope access. Finally, it will give you access to professionals. Many professors and researchers are in need of people to do their side project. These often get done by undergrads, and if you go back to school you can get involved. All you do is ask around the department if anyone needs free help, and then find someone you want to work with. You might get a coauthorship out of it. This is how I did my first paper as an undergrad.

2. Look online for topics that amateurs with a telescope can help with. Try variable stars, asteroids, comets, supernovae, gamma ray bursts, etc. Alternatively, if you are into programming, CS, or data methods and their applications to astronomy, this is a great area to make contributions with little-to-no startup cost. Rapid time series analysis and signal processing are big these days, among many other things.

3. Don't be ignorant. Read introductory textbooks. Refresh yourself on math, physics, and programming. Read wikipedia. Read arxiv astro-ph and use ADS.


There are other non-astro things I can think of too. I'm into paleontology as a hobby - its another field that amateurs routinely make contributions in, but that's decreasing with time. Fossil collecting can be really fun while also getting you outdoors. Unfortunately, this is highly dependent on your location, local laws, and other factors out of your control. Same with amateur archaeology - but this is even harder to do. In some parts of the US, for example, amateurs have found major native american archaeological sites, which they then call in professionals to help with. Another way to get involved in these fields is to volunteer at a natural history museum or a university, similar to how I described for astronomy, but it is usually easier because they need people to help on digs and things. There is less potential for a publication, though. Computer Science, mathematics, and software engineering also seem like fields an amateur could make contributions in.

The whole thing is essentially geometry-free, only the differential of any vector ever plays a role.

Which is precisely why the Erik Verlinde paper (along with Padmanabhan's insights) using holography to derive gravity is so exciting. It makes gravity an emergent feature rather than a fundamental force, just like we observe in nature.

N.b., the theorists haven't gotten a derivation for general relativity, yet, but there has been a flurry of activity. One nice thing about Verlinde's analysis is that the observed value of dark energy falls naturally out of his equations, unlike in Lambda-CDM.

-l

16km, while impressive, is not the record. The summary is completely wrong. Ursin et. al. did it over 144km in 2006, and have plans to do it via satellite (with interesting implications about whether it works through a changing gravity well, and so on).

Well, actually, there is a potential for more "solid" quantum states, http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/cond-mat/pdf/0011/0011269v1.pdf. But you're mostly right, although we could both be mostly wrong at most of times.

True, XOR is the fastest operation, and One-Time Pads use XOR and nothing else. However, short of you and the other person using radio telescopes to obtain a common intergalactic source of randomness (and, yes, that is seriously done), you need to take account of the time (and space) needed to store pads large enough and the encryption time (which can't use a One-Time Pad) taken to securely transfer it.

Having said that, for B2B, OTPs using an intergalactic RNG would likely be cheaper and safer than using quantum cryptography. It would also be much more practical, as it takes a lot of hardware at the moment to deliver qbits. Also, OTPs can't be broken -at all- if the pad itself is secure, but the vulnerability recently discussed shows that quantum cryptography CAN be broken to the extent of being partially readable.

To use a common radio source, all you need is a common starting point and a common target. Aluminum atomic clocks have an error of 8.6e-18 of a second. (This makes it a 1.1 Petahertz clock, rather better than the clock chips we're typically using.) That should be good enough to get some excellent randomness from just about any source out there and insure that both collection systems are in-phase.

Folks who find the original post more interesting than the typical Slashdot discussion that followed might be interested in this recent work: Pressure-temperature Phase Diagram of the Earth
It discusses the possible range of "life as we know it" in the deep lithosphere.

As far as I can tell, the "big crunch" hypothesis isn't yet totally ruled out, though majority opinion is probably against it.

I have some on this point in astrophysics. I think "continual expansion" continues for one trillion years, then "heat death" and the universe goes dark. Even read a GREAT SF story on it once. Most of this comes from string theory and the "brane thing".

This is a brief announcement of our recent proof of global existence and rapid decay to equilibrium of classical solutions to the Boltzmann equation without any angular cutoff, that is, for long-range interactions.

Isn't the PNAS article just an announcement of the proof? The paper itself should be this http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0888.

For the math-inclined:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.0888

(yes, that was from 2009)

As far as I can tell, the "big crunch" hypothesis isn't yet totally ruled out, though majority opinion is probably against it.

There are two things about this publication that make it remarkable.

1. This is a new useful information processing primitive that is only possible to do quantum, not in any classical information processing (the paper cites impossibility proof in classical domain). There's just a handful such quantum primitives known today (e.g., QKD, Shor's algorithm), so discovering one more is a great deal.

2. It is practically implementable with today's quantum crypto hardware. In fact, I expect any lab that has a working free-space QKD system can be working on an experimental demonstration of location-restricted QKD right now. It may just take some software rewriting and a couple extra wi-fi links to assemble a full 2D-location QKD scheme.

To be fair I must mention that the location primitive has been published two months ago by R. Malaney from Australia. However, his version was more difficult to implement (although also doable with today's experimental techniques), and notably it lacked QKD functionality. Now with this publication the scheme is complete and is even supplied with a security proof. My applauds to the authors.