Slashdot Mirror
Theorists Make Quantum Communications Breakthrough
KentuckyFC writes "One of the cornerstones of modern physics is Claude Shannon's theory of communication, which he published in 1948. If you've ever made a phone call, watched TV, or used a computer, you've got Shannon to thank for describing how information can be moved from one place in the universe to another using an idea called the channel capacity. But nobody has been able to develop a quantum version of this theory. So physicists have no idea how much quantum information can be sent from one point to another. Now two American physicists have made an important breakthrough by proving that two quantum channels with zero capacity can carry information when used together. That's interesting because it indicates that physicists may have been barking up the wrong tree with this problem: it implies that the quantum capacity of a channel does not uniquely specify its ability for transmitting quantum information (abstract). And that could be the idea that breaks the logjam in this area."
Actual link: http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/ms/what/shannonday/paper.html
Now two American physicists have made an important breakthrough by proving that two quantum channels with zero capacity can carry information when used together.
So who wants to join my class-action lawsuit against math teachers?
"two quantum channels with zero capacity can carry information"
Feynman once said that nobody understands quantum mechanics, and this is why.
When you use quantum encryption, the theorists win !
\u262D = \u5350
Try not to look directly at it...
It was called ISDN.
I thought it said "Terrorists Make Quantum Communications Breakthrough".
I c u d h l w t q a t m r p o r p y
h h t o n s i e g e t d a
t o l e p i h u n u c y t g a h .
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I'm not sure how useful this is. The summaries seem to say that if you take two or more channels that have a signal to noise ratio of zero, there's some potential for binding them into a useful channel, but there's no indication of what kind of recovery rate there can be gained from this. Is this just error-correction applied to an extreme?
Am I the only one who's worried that we keep getting 'news' from papers published on ArXiv, which is not a peer-reviewed source?
Just saying, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
You just got troll'd!
what does it mean for my porn collection?
(this is a joke. Of course I don't have a porn collection, dear).
I am a leaf on the wind
Oops, too late. You're entangled!
Bruce Perens.
You can xor a random pad of 1s and 0s with some copyrighted data, and end up with a block of data which looks totally random. Neither the random pad or the encrypted block have any useful information when taken apart, but together they contain all the information of the copyrighted work.
The summary didn't have any information on what a 'zero capacity channel' was. If I read it a second time, will I understand?
Have gnu, will travel.
I think that Khashishi has got the essence of the 0+0>0 thing here. I haven't completely penetrated the noise in the Smith/Yard ArXiv article yet, but I'd bet my money that it boils down to this:
Take two channels in each of which all bits are completely random, and independent of the information that you wish to send. Let each bit of your information determine the correllation or anticorrellation of corresponding bits in the two channels, by introducing a quantum constraint between them before their actual random values are determined. Then, as in Khashishi's description, the xor of the two random channels is the message.
The only difference I detect in Smith/Yard vs. Khashishi is that they use quantum trickery to make the whole thing look symmetric. Neither of the random channels predates the other. Each one, evaluated singly, appears to be completely independent of the encoded message. In Khashishi's description, the time sequence in the construction of the two random sequences makes one of them seem a priori random, and the other to be a one-time pad encoding of the message, while in the Smith/Yard article you can't tell which is which.
It seems more like a meretricious way of telling a causal story about a well-known phenomenon than something truly "essentially quantum."
Mike O'Donnell http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~odonnell/
I have DirecTV. That gives me something like six hundred channels which have zero intellectual capacity but yet still manage to carry data.
Harry "Hello Jim Im ringing you back regarding the message you left on my voice mail." Jim "What message ? I hevent left one yet" Harry "Aw crap I did it again, I will never get my head around our new quantum telephone system"
Am I the only one who read the headline as "terrorists"? That gave me a double take. That's just the headline McCain's been looking for.
my comment is both here and not here simutaniously?
Code fragment:
int a = 15/20;
int b = 15/20;
int c = a + b;
int d = (15 + 15) / 20;
printf("%d",d-c);
Result: 1
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0807/0807.4935v1.pdf
Interesting, but the paper seems to have a nasty habit of simply redefining what "capacity" means in a quantum context, to basically, "Well, if we have two interacting channels, one changes the other to have non-zero capacity." And if I interpret it that way, it simply rewords the problem to be different from the original interpretation. Also, there's a significant amount (even for an arxiv paper) of speculation present (which is interesting!). From the paper: Nonetheless, each channel has
the potential to \activate" the other, effectively cancel-
ing the other's reason for having no capacity. We know
of no analog of this effect in the classical theory. Per-
haps each channel transfers some different, but comple-
mentary kind of quantum information. If so, can these
kinds of information be quantfied in an operationally
meaningful way? Are there other pairs of zero-capacity
channels displaying this effect? Are there triples? Does
the private capacity also display superactivation? What
new insights does this yield for computing the quantum
capacity in general?
One "classical" analogy is that of orthogonally-crossed polarizers, which, upon insertion of another polarizer with principle axis somewhere between that of the originals, will allow light to shine through where none was before.
So it's basically a mindfuck, just like the rest of quantum theory.
I'm kinda surprised this wasn't tested before. You'd think all the mindfucks would be checked since it's basically maybe opposite day over in quantum-land.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Because quantum information can be negative it would seem this theory could be applied to make a channel with 0 negative capacity have some cpacity from nothing in the same way.
So really any extra positive capacity could be cancelled out.
FTA... "points to the existence of incomparable types of quantum information"
mind blowing...
You can extract immense amounts of information from the combination of Fox News (channel 0 with no signal) and the White House Press Secretary (channel 1 with no signal).
Anything in common is a lie, and that is useful information.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Not a S/N ratio of zero, their definition of channel capacity is only very tenuously connected to Shannon's channel capacity really. Quantum channels already have 0 capacity at non zero fidelity (the quantum equivalent to S/N). The 0 capacity channel from this paper aren't 0 capacity because of their fidelity though, the channels are 0 capacity for different reasons.
So it's not really directly applicable, "just" interesting math.
This just in to the ./ news wire:
A message from aliens has been discovered and decrypted using 157 Channels of vacuous cable TV.
The message reads:
"Wer in ur pr0n and pwn ur ipod."
Meaning two blondes make a brunette?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If "two quantum channels with zero capacity can carry information when used together" then how much information could you send with 4 channels? Of even 2 channels with some (>0) capacity?
Would that end up with an infinite ampunt of information, or just all the information in the universe?
Maybe you'd get a 'beep' of all the messages ever sent by this method (like the beep you get from a dirac receiver in James Blish's story).
recycling.... duh.
I think this might be somehow linked to the fact that if we have two messages with zero information you can (trivially) combine them to have one message with full ("one") information.
The real question in my mind is whether this allows for FTL communication, or whether nature conspires against that once again?
I believe it's Bell's inequality that prevents information from traveling faster than light. But each of these channels does NOT transmit information, if the paper is to be believed.
So, does that mean they could somehow be used with entangled photons or whatever to transmit information faster than light?
...by using two channels it works like download accelerator plus and dial-up. I knew SOMETHING would make DAP work, and it was quantum mechanics.
they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
Man, i need a break from the news, i swear i read the headline as 'terrorists make ....', and then i was like 'that's odd, how could a small band of underfunded terrorists be ahead of western science in quantum physics..'
You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat. -- Einstein
And quantum communication operates in exactly the same way. The only difference is that they use Schrödinger's Cat.
As soon as I opened this article my cat died of cyanide poisoning.
Is anyone else having this problem?
FTFS: ... Claude Shannon's theory of communication, which he published in 1948. If you've ever made a phone call, watched TV, or used a computer, you've got Shannon to thank...
What about people using telephones, televisions and computers before 1948? Who did they have to thank?
I'm glad it wasn't: "Terrorists Make Quantum Communications Breakthrough" is I first read it as...
Lars Bo Wassini
The recent Amateur radio mode called WSPR ('whisper') can work with a signal around 27 dB below the noise (SNR of -27dB). This site records contacts between hams worldwide in real time. Most activity is on 30m.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
From TFP:
"One of the cornerstones of modern physics is Claude Shannon's theory of communication, which he published in 1948. If you've ever made a phone call, watched TV, or used a computer, you've got Shannon to thank for describing how information can be moved from one place in the universe to another using an idea called the channel capacity."
If I've 'ever' made a phone call I should thank him? Even if I made a phone call before 1948?
So what you're really saying is that you need a mop to wipe up the remains of my exploded head.
Thanks for that.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
IANAQP, but, wouldn't this imply that faster than light communication is possible?
For those of us more dense than the mods a clue:
W y t a s u d l k a r a i e !
h . h t o n s i e g e t d a
I c u d h l w t q a t m r p o r p y
t o l . e p i h u n u c y t g a h .
One "classical" analogy is that of orthogonally-crossed polarizers, which, upon insertion of another polarizer with principle axis somewhere between that of the originals, will allow light to shine through where none was before.
Is this like crossing streams?
That reminds me of a lesson an information theorist taught me:
If you want to be useless to people, you can't simply feed them *wrong* information, because once they realize you always give them wrong information, you become *more* useful to them, because they can simply invert everything you say (i.e. assume it's false), to extract useful information.
So, to be useless, you have to keep giving, not *wrong* information, but *random* information -- sometimes true, sometimes false, so they can't extract any "signal" out of you.
He was unemployed at the time.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
The ansible, fatlines, farcasters and more goodies.
Still no flying cars though.
About the entire nature of 0. What is 0? Is it like infinity? The opposite of everything is nothing? I am not a math person by any stretch (and all of this pondering here pure speculation) but as I understand 0 it is the absence of any value. Looking at this statement 0+0>0 makes me think we are looking at 2 sets of 0 values. Do we need to count each set of values? While the answer is not > 1 it is > 0 because we have 2 sets of 0. Also in the same case what about 0+0? Could the answer really in fact be 2?
After reading a series of interlinked wikipedia articles, about 12, I still have no f**king idea what this is about. Everything is too abstract. Everything is just a phrase reffering to another phrase reffering to another phrase. Does any of it have quantatative meaning?
Translated into normal, human speak, what I want to say is- Its great that they prooved that you can do it. Now, show me the machine they did it with, and I'll take it as proof. Untill then, it is meaningless to me, and anyone else who is grounded firmly in reality.
That's the saltiest thing I've ever eaten! And I once ate a big bowl of salt!
I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!