Photon Pair Coupled in Glass Fiber

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Photon Pair Coupled in Glass Fiber

Posted by Soulskill on Monday November 3, 2014 @07:19PM from the infinitesimal-yet-significant dept.

Trachman writes: Austrian scientists have discovered a way to couple photon pairs. When two identical photons are coupled and the phase of one is changed, then thanks to the magic of quantum mechanics, the phase of the other photon also changes (abstract). Scientists predict this can advance quantum optics and quantum computations, taking us a step closer to having data transmissions secure from the nosy agencies of the world.

If any of you have expertise in this area, could you share your thoughts on the essence of this discovery and its associated potential practical applications?

91 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Naive optimism in headline by rogoshen1 · 2014-11-03 19:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

Step 1. invent new process that *potentially* could thwart nosy droppers of eaves
Step 2. Process is so expensive and difficult to implement, said agencies are likely to be the only users.
Step 3. Post to slashdot.
People need to wake up and realize that privacy is dead, and ubiquitous violations of personal privacy will soon become the norm.
Your grandchildren will think you a bit 'off' for being of the opinion that privacy is a good thing.
1. Re:Naive optimism in headline by gweihir · 2014-11-03 20:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Actually, it is even worse: "quantum modulation" is complete BS as networking technology and cannot scale to any real-world WAN networking, except on dedicated links. Why this nonsense gets touted every time is a mystery to me. In addition, what was done so far on dedicated links got broken. It is also not needed at all, as it is so slow that all you do with it is transfer a symmetric encryption key and then you use a conventional VPN. The key exchange is not a vulnerable part of a VPN link, at least if done right. So, in practice, this stuff does not scale, cannot be routed and is not increasing security anyways.
  As to privacy being dead, that is a completely unrelated issue, and it is untrue. Strong encryption works. You do have to use it and you do need to invest at least a few days to find out how to use it right, this is not a "single click" problem. (Well, almost nothing is a "single click" problem, but people are stupid and believe the defective things they get delivered as "single click" would actually be beneficial.)
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
2. Re:Naive optimism in headline by umghhh · 2014-11-03 20:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  we all made a conscious decision on that? I must have missed that somehow. Privacy is not dead. There is always something that can be done to ensure good enough level of privacy that also allows good enough chances to catch criminals. The current violations of privacy are not used to do even that but serve the powers that be. And that needs to change.
3. Re:Naive optimism in headline by gl4ss · 2014-11-03 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  the article and blurb both hint at instant teleportation of information.
  someone could shed light on why this is isn't so? I mean, someone with more than mumbo jumbo?
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:Naive optimism in headline by umghhh · 2014-11-03 20:59 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose by "single click problem you mean "a problem that is solved by single click" or a problem that is caused in single click directly followed by 'oh shit" realization? Privacy, encryption, authentication and authorization are all quite difficult already without bad terminology being used.
5. Re:Naive optimism in headline by amias · 2014-11-03 21:22 · Score: 1
  
  i don't see how this can be used for anything but a dedicated link
  
  --
  [site]
6. Re:Naive optimism in headline by qwijibo · 2014-11-03 21:25 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  We don't get to decide. There are no serious privacy oriented options left in the marketplace. Privacy is about as hopeless as buying stuff not-made-in-China.
  However, if you find that to be offensive, feel free to create misleading information to poison the various databases about you. The nice thing about companies collecting and reselling information about everyone is that they're so gullible. Just be reasonable enough that the new data doesn't get flagged and omitted. If you're a "Fry Technician" at a Fortune 500 company's franchisee, you may want more than one hop between now and your aspiring Bruce Wayne persona.
  Depending on how much free time you have, or how much you just like to game the system, you can do things from provide grossly inaccurate income information to those that ask, to having one or more businesses (or hobbies looking like businesses), or creating new people. The easiest, legal way to create fictitious people is "authorized users" on a corporate credit card account. Anyone willing to pay a yearly fee can open a corporate account, then add anyone they want with little more than a name. As long as you use your fake people for legitimate transactions and pay your bills, there's nothing illegal about it.
  Back on topic, hopefully developments like this can later be turned into more secure communication technologies that can be used after the advertising&data-merchant economy collapses.
7. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-03 21:34 · Score: 0
  
  The context of this as so far given is utter rubbish. Nobody really cares who is snooping into your Badger Porn. Eeuw.
  Get over your Basement Dwelling lives.
  The deeper context involves investigation, and eventual detection of Edge Effects in Quantum Boundaries: Those conditions that determine the intermediate and end results of most Chemical and some Nuclear Reactions, at very fast time scales. Or vice versa. Probabilistically, of course.
  Photon Pairs, coupled, or when very conveniently, uncoupled, are our Best Probes of things so small, that they rarely even effect the taste of a French Fry, but when studied in Tandem, coupled and un-coupled, they may just finally reveal the perplexities of simple H2O, from just the molecule and then, finally, to bulk quantities. Those of at least two molecules.
8. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Bismuthprince · 2014-11-03 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  I love how within the first three comments on Slashdot all hope and wonder contained in TFA is thouroughly shot down. Never change /.
9. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-03 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, you require a reality check, what grandchildren were you referring to again? :>
10. Re:Naive optimism in headline by flyneye · 2014-11-03 23:38 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  How does a couple screw in a light bulb?
  First you have to shrink them down and get them inside....
  Got no clue about coupling in a fiber strand...
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
11. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Jarik+C-Bol · 2014-11-03 23:52 · Score: 2
  
  There needs to be a moderation tag for "Sad but True."
  
  --
  I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
12. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Tyr07 · 2014-11-04 00:03 · Score: 1
  
  Actually there are significant things anyone can do if there is anything they actually want to keep private.
  However if you post it on facebook, no it's not private. This spread of people saying 'Privacy is gone it's in the past' sounds like a personal tote boi who works for said agencies.
  Privacy is real, it's current, it's now, and it's not difficult to have if you can handle not posting everything on facebook.
  You can also maintain it. If you have a phone, does it need GPS? Does it need internet? Does it need facebook?
  No?
  Right, go back to using phones only when you need it. Do not always be connected. E.G Turn shit off when you don't need it or you're busy. All of a sudden, the level of privacy you had goes back to what it used to be.
13. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  I'm more amazed anyone believes that in our current society strong encryption helps maintain privacy in any way.
14. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Rei · 2014-11-04 01:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here's how collapse of the waveform works. If you take a measurement, you will get a value.
  1. The value you get is completely random to you.
  2. You cannot in any way choose the value.
  3. You cannot know, by reading it, if anyone else has already collapsed the waveform, or if the value you're getting is new.
  4. If someone does collapse the waveform, however, when the other side tries to measure it, they'll get the same value - instantaneously.
  The problem with trying to use this as some sort of instantaneous information teleportation system is that while it is instantaneous, it's not sending information. Your reading it does not give any information to the other side. You don't choose the value and they can't tell that you've read it. All they get is random noise.
  It is, however, potentially valuable for cryptography, in that you can simultaneously generate the same one-time pad in two locations without any snoopable channel, which you can then use to encode or decode data. The data still has to be sent by conventional means - as mentioned above, you're not sending any information by measuring quantum states, the other side has no clue what you've done or not done - but the pad itself is perfectly random and unsnoopable.
  
  --
  Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
15. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  The key exchange is not a vulnerable part of a VPN link
  Well if you can prove that mathematically you'll get at least a million dollars in bounties, a likely Nobel Prize and/or Fields Medal, plus eternal fame as a computer scientist.
  Unfortunately, you can't. No one can. So it's a little early to say it's not vulnerable.
  Also, in claiming it is not vulnerable you're kind of asserting that the link is vulnerable after key exchange, which is counter to your premise that strong encryption works. If strong encryption works, key exchange is the only vulnerable part. Of course, we don't know if strong encryption works either ...
16. Re:Naive optimism in headline by penix1 · 2014-11-04 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  I'm more amazed anyone believes that in our current society strong encryption helps maintain privacy in any way.
  
  I tend to agree with you mostly because it requires both ends to be encrypted to the same level to be of any use. It also requires too many parties have their hands in the security pot to be believable. Everything from the browser to the certifying authority to the end users. That is why encryption truly can be security theater.
  
  --
  This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
17. Re:Naive optimism in headline by fnj · 2014-11-04 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  If you have a phone, does it need GPS?
  Pretty much.[*]
  
  Does it need internet?
  Pretty much.[*]
  
  Does it need facebook?
  Facebook should fuck off and die yesterday. Facebook is for retards.
  [*] When I say "pretty much", I mean not because it is a telephone per se, but because most cellphones are much more than telephones, and marketed as much more than telephones. If you had said "Does GPS need to be kept turned on all the time" I would heartily agree that it does NOT. But I don't know anybody who DOES keep it turned on all the time. It is way too much of a power hog.
18. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Tyr07 · 2014-11-04 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  I usually use phone that has none of these features, lasts two weeks on a normal charge, makes phone calls.
  Easy to maintain a higher level of privacy, and I only turn it on when I expect a call or need to call someone. Makes it cheap.
  At best they know where I am at times, which doesn't matter. Privacy is still real and affordable, and people can get it if they want it.
  Saying privacy is gone is not correct. Saying people are too lazy to put any effort or be inconvenienced to maintain privacy is correct.
19. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Charliemopps · 2014-11-04 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Step 1. invent new process that *potentially* could thwart nosy droppers of eaves
  Step 2. Process is so expensive and difficult to implement, said agencies are likely to be the only users.
  Step 3. Post to slashdot.
  People need to wake up and realize that privacy is dead, and ubiquitous violations of personal privacy will soon become the norm.
  Your grandchildren will think you a bit 'off' for being of the opinion that privacy is a good thing.
  Don't be silly.
  Privacy when talking at distances greater than 10 feet was something new that only occurred just recently in history. That may be dead for now, temporarily at least. But you're more than welcome to walk out into your backyard and chat.
20. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with trying to use this as some sort of instantaneous information teleportation system is that while it is instantaneous, it's not sending information. Your reading it does not give any information to the other side. You don't choose the value and they can't tell that you've read it. All they get is random noise.
  In a sense there are ways to use it to send information, or to copy information onto a target system from something on the other end of communication link. But they all involve the random component, such that no matter what someone does at the other end, the signal will look like the same random noise to you on this end. The key to such schemes that use it to send information or teleport states, is you need the other ends measurement, and take actions based on it. So for the example of sending a state to teleport information, you need to wait for a measurement from the source to come via classical means, and then use that to apply a transformation on your end (otherwise your end is randomly garbled in a way that you can only undo knowing a measurement from the other end).
21. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Trachman · 2014-11-04 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Privacy is dead? At the minimum, photons can have their privacy.
  Look at the topic the other way: the world that we know does rely on the privacy of quantum unpredictability, the idea that the photon spin cannot be snooped without altering it. The same world that you know without privacy in what quantum particles are doing would be behaving very differently, no need to explain if one has some familiarity with quantum mechanics.
22. Re:Naive optimism in headline by camperdave · 2014-11-04 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  I only turn it on when I expect a call
  Do you post your call answering schedule somewhere? What happens when someone wants to get in touch with you during your non-answering hours? Third party voicemail? So much for privacy. So much for cheap.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
23. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  quantum modulation" is complete BS as networking technology and cannot scale to any real-world WAN networking, except on dedicated links.
  Has anyone building these systems claimed that it would not need dedicated links? And the fact that they use dedicated links is not why they get broken. Schemes that have been broken so far all make allowances for noise, and ignore a certain amount of it. Not ignoring a signal that could also indicate you are being eavesdropped is what is needed, and long distance channel quality is improving (yes, using dedicated links...).
24. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Tyr07 · 2014-11-04 03:20 · Score: 2
  
  it goes to voicemail? You realize that voicemail on cellphones isn't built into the bloody phone right? It's from your provider.
  Just the same as my voice calls can be tapped so can my voice mail, but a reasonable level of privacy is there unless I'm investigated.
  And no I don't. This may be a hard concept for you as you're probably a bit younger than I am, but people do not need to be able to talk to me at all times of the day no matter where I am. 99.99% of the time it is never an emergency that I really wished I got that phone call.
  You know, once upon a time, people didn't have cell phones, just regular ones. When you called, they were simply 'not home' and you had to wait until they called you back, or you had to just try again another time when you think they might be home.
25. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  Morse code?
26. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Step 4 is the usual explanation, but it's important to note that it contains an interpretation as to what happens. The most you can actually say is that the other party will get a value which, when the two results are later compared, is found to be the same. For my money, and especially given just how weird QM is anyhow, there's a lot of wiggle-room in that difference.
27. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  You can argue about interpretation all you want, but that won't change the results predicted for measurements, which is quite rigorously confined by the math of QM. Anything you do at one end cannot change the possible distribution of outputs as seen by a single end. That math is quite specific about this, with no wiggle room for interpretation. The only way for things do to be different is if QM was fundamentally wrong.
28. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Zeromous · 2014-11-04 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  I use this to track where my information comes from. Salutations such as Professor, or minor mispellings work wonders to reveal the path of crumbs your information left for businesses to follow you.
  
  --
  ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
29. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 06:13 · Score: 0
  
  You know, once upon a time, people didn't have cell phones, just regular ones...
  This always seemed like a stupid argument. Once upon a time people didn't have cell phones, or computers, or modern medicine, etc., yet lived fulfilling lives and business marched on. Things like cell phones give more flexibility, so that some of us that are on call can go elsewhere instead of sitting in an office all night. And the great thing about flexibility, is it usually means you don't have to use it. If you want to say why you don't need it, great, but don't start down the path of how acting like things were no different in the past.
  And it doesn't have to do with age, as I remember when you were supposed to buy your own phone (for the landline) at all, because the telephone company owned all of the phones in your house.
30. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  There are no serious privacy oriented options left in the marketplace. Privacy is about as hopeless as buying stuff not-made-in-China.
  When you say "no options" and "hopeless", it is because like everyone else, you must be giving price the highest priority. It is just like things not-made-in-China, you just have to pay more and expect to be dealing with smaller companies and not grabbing stuff off a shelf in a Walmart. At least the people who don't care much about privacy will admit that they are choosing other options because they care more about price.
31. Re:Naive optimism in headline by qwijibo · 2014-11-04 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  An intelligent, but insane friend used to rot13 the name of the information requestor, add vowels as needed and use that as the name provided. That made the source readily apparent. However, this was back in the 90's. I'm not sure if the post office would deliver mail to hundreds of different names now that the mail traffic is captured, or just flag you for reeducation.
32. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Jane+Q.+Public · 2014-11-04 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  People need to wake up and realize that privacy is dead, and ubiquitous violations of personal privacy will soon become the norm.
  Absolute hogwash.
  
  The moment privacy actually became dead, so would freedom. You definitely, indisputably cannot have that both ways.
33. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Zeromous · 2014-11-04 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  Far less intelligent me got the idea when I applied for Sally Struther's Firearms repair course and they misspelled the junkmail as a result of that for years!
  
  --
  ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
34. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 08:47 · Score: 0
  
  "The problem with trying to use this as some sort of instantaneous information teleportation system is that while it is instantaneous, it's not sending information. Your reading it does not give any information to the other side. You don't choose the value and they can't tell that you've read it. All they get is random noise."
  There is the phenomenon of information gain, however. When one side reads a value, they know what the other side read (or will read). If one side has some previous information about what the other side will do when they read a value, then you've gained information, instantaneously, about the other side.
35. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  Another example of naive realism.
  
  Scientific realism in classical physics has remained compatible with the naïve realism of everyday thinking on the whole but there is no known, consistent way to visualize the world underlying quantum theory in terms of ideas of the everyday world. "The general conclusion is that in quantum theory naïve realism, although necessary at the level of observations, fails at the microscopic level." (Gomatam, Ravi. (2004). Physics and Commonsense - Reassessing the connection in the light of the quantum theory, arXiv.org.)
36. Re:Naive optimism in headline by camperdave · 2014-11-04 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  it goes to voicemail? You realize that voicemail on cellphones isn't built into the bloody phone right? It's from your provider. Just the same as my voice calls can be tapped so can my voice mail, but a reasonable level of privacy is there unless I'm investigated.
  And no I don't. This may be a hard concept for you as you're probably a bit younger than I am, but people do not need to be able to talk to me at all times of the day no matter where I am. 99.99% of the time it is never an emergency that I really wished I got that phone call.
  You know, once upon a time, people didn't have cell phones, just regular ones. When you called, they were simply 'not home' and you had to wait until they called you back, or you had to just try again another time when you think they might be home.
  I lived in that once upon a time, before cell phones and answering machines... well, before the cassette tape answering machines anyway. So I do realize that voicemail isn't built into the cell phone. That's why I said third party. So what kind of phone do you have that has two weeks of standby time?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
37. Re:Naive optimism in headline by gweihir · 2014-11-04 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Really? This is not clear to you? I guess you will encounter a lot more "bad terminology" if you already fail at something this clear and obvious.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
38. Re:Naive optimism in headline by gweihir · 2014-11-04 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  In theory, optical routing. But there are likely unsolvable practical problems. And even if feasible, it does not do anything for security and it would drive cost up massively.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
39. Re:Naive optimism in headline by gweihir · 2014-11-04 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if you did actually understand crypto or mathematics, you would know that real-world properties like security cannot be proven mathematically. The rest of your statement is of similar insight-less quality. Really, read up on mathematics and crypto and stop claiming nonsense.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
40. Re:Naive optimism in headline by gweihir · 2014-11-04 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  Dedicated links are a special-purpose application with a very small niche-market. As such, they are not going to do anything for most people.
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
41. Re:Naive optimism in headline by iggymanz · 2014-11-04 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Or people could wake up and invoke tried and true methods of changing the practices of powers that are against privacy, liberty and freedom.
42. Re:Naive optimism in headline by BranMan · 2014-11-04 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  What is wrong with all you people? Stop using the Internet for exchanging keys! Make a 2048 bit or so secret key, go and physically hand it to the person you want to communicate with, then encrypt to your hearts content - basking in the certainty that your communications is not being intercepted by said agencies.
  If 2048 does not seem strong enough, use more. At some point it becomes impossible to brute force crack it.
  Key exchange is the bane of security - STOP USING IT. Do NOT depend on it for anything important.
43. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Tyr07 · 2014-11-04 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  Samgsung Gravity. Two week standby time. Probably get a week out of it with somewhere between light and moderate use.
44. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Rei · 2014-11-04 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's teleporting information in the same way that writing down, "At 3:00 I'm going to do X, at 4:15 I'm going to do Y, at 4:50 I'm going to do Z..." on a letter and sending it to another party is teleporting information. The steps on which they take actions could just as well have been any source of non-random, pseudo-random, or random data of a reproduceable nature. They could just as well both have, for example, traditional random number generators keyed to the same key. Are traditional random number generators "information teleportation" because a person may have a list of planned activities in response to certain random values?
  
  --
  Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
45. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 16:51 · Score: 0
  
  That use would be indistinguishable from a hidden variable though and would be a rather boring use of entanglement since you could do that classically. You don't get that information so much instantaneously, as you still have to wait for both ends to get their entangled particles, and then can make a measurement at any time. As far as coordination, it still results in a speed of light delay.
46. Re:Naive optimism in headline by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 17:27 · Score: 0
  
  And who has said otherwise again? It seems disingenuous to hammer on something like that which is pretty clearly stated or obvious when looking into any such products.
47. Re:Naive optimism in headline by gweihir · 2014-11-05 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Can you read? Have you seen this sentence in the OP: "Scientists predict this can advance quantum optics and quantum computations, taking us a step closer to having data transmissions secure from the nosy agencies of the world." ?
  
  --
  Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
48. Re:Naive optimism in headline by mcswell · 2014-11-08 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  Might help to let some air in the bulb
News for nerds!?! by pegdhcp · 2014-11-03 19:34 · Score: 2

For some reason I was not compelled to pay 30+ USD for a seemingly very important paper, describing the future scientific base of (quasi ?) secure communications.
1. Re:News for nerds!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-03 20:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  http://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.1860.pdf
2. Re:News for nerds!?! by business_kid · 2014-11-03 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  Have to agree. This is on the scale of "That old lemur we found could be _the_ missing link in human evolution." Which one of the 1000s of missing links?
  Can't blame the guy (who obviously worked hard) for trying to make his work sound interesting. But it's significance is that it may be one of the lower steps in someone else's future ladder.
3. Re:News for nerds!?! by camperdave · 2014-11-04 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't help. There was no compulsion to pay using that link either.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
4. Re:News for nerds!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  You just got the paper for free, dickhead.
  OR at least a pre-paywalled version of it.
5. Re:News for nerds!?! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  OP reports that he was not required to pay
  AC provides another link
  Camperdave reports that the new link does not require to pay either.
  AC doesn't get the joke and says that the link is free.
  /me Explains with a WHOOSH!!
  
  WHOOSH!!
Oh dear, comms is too secure as it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-03 19:43 · Score: 0

At least, that's what our friendly spooks think:

"However much they may dislike it, [US technology companies] have become the command and control networks of choice for terrorists and criminals, who find their services as transformational as the rest of us," he writes.
"The challenge to governments and their intelligence agencies is huge - and it can only be met with greater co-operation from technology companies.
1. Re:Oh dear, comms is too secure as it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-03 20:47 · Score: 0
  
  Technology sure has changed since that tyrant Abraham Lincoln tapped all the telegraphs.
2. Re:Oh dear, comms is too secure as it is! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  This is laughable bullshit! The excessive collection of inconsequential data has actually hurt the process of detecting terrorist activity. And, none of the three-letter US agencies or four-letter British ones has ever stopped anything!
  If one is looking for a needle in a haystack, the last thing one needs is more hay...
You get what you ask for by evanh · 2014-11-03 19:57 · Score: 1

Lets decide not to have any secrets while were at it.
Maybe there will be photon children by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-03 19:58 · Score: 0

*sigh* who knows
Nerds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-03 20:05 · Score: 0

For some reason I was not compelled to pay 30+ USD for a seemingly very important paper, describing the future scientific base of (quasi ?) secure communications.
Andrew from http://www.olyneo.com/
Equation by fahrbot-bot · 2014-11-03 20:20 · Score: 1

If any of you have expertise in this area, could you share your thoughts on the essence of this discovery and its associated potential practical applications?
((expertise in QM) + (expertise in photon coupling)) x (reads /.) = constant

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The Summary is Wrong: Photon AND Gate? by blavallee · 2014-11-03 20:35 · Score: 5, Informative

According to the article, "When both hit the resonator at the same time, both of them together experience a phase shift by 180 degrees."
It's not advancement in quantum communications, it's an advancement in quantum computation.

The potential practical application... it resembles an AND logic gate function, with photons!
This could be a game changer by rolfwind · 2014-11-03 21:11 · Score: 1

We might be seeing a major milestone towards the march to quantum computers. Getting 2 photons to interact with each other via a single rubidium atom is a big step. The process still has high noise but I think that can be overcome, but wow, strong interaction between photons.
It's an efficient photonic switch. by mrthoughtful · 2014-11-03 21:28 · Score: 2

What it 'means' is that we are a step closer to optical switching - i.e., optical computers.
The important aspect of the work, as I see it, is that the switch is activated optically also, and the complexity of the switch is low (allowing it to be manufactured easily).
However, I'm no expert in the field. I just read the article, and am geek enough to read /.

--
This comment was written with the intention to opt out of advertising.
Sorry to be pedantic, but.. by whereiswaldo · 2014-11-03 21:50 · Score: 1

Shouldn't the headline read "scientists have discovered a way to couple photons into pairs"? The original "scientists have discovered a way to couple photon pairs" makes it sound like the photons are already paired and those pairs can be further paired.
1. Re:Sorry to be pedantic, but.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 01:18 · Score: 0
  
  No, it shouldn't. "Photon pairs" just means sets of two photons which are associated in some way e.g. at about the same place at about the same time. Those photons can be coupled or uncoupled within the pair. Scientists have discovered a way to couple them. So, they are coupling photon pairs.
2. Re:Sorry to be pedantic, but.. by hawkinspeter · 2014-11-04 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  I also thought they were talking about coupling two pairs of photons. I understand what you're saying, but you'd expect there to be a difference between saying "coupling photons" or "coupling photon pairs". I think "coupling photons" would have been clearer.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Doesn't help by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-03 22:11 · Score: 0

This will not make anything any more secure than things are now. You still need routers and ISP's and so on and NSA et al can just tap into the routers and you'll be none the wiser. This will only help with security if you have a direct pipe from one end to the other and nothing in between.
Media and the Copenhagen interpretation by amaurea · 2014-11-03 23:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Only 42% of quantum physicisists would agree with the statement in the summary that "When two identical photons are coupled and the phase of one is changed, then thanks to the magic of quantum mechanics, the phase of the other photon also changes", and 40% of them would actively disagree. While the mathematics and measurement predictions of quantum mechanics is quite uncontroversial, the interpretation beyond that is a topic of much debate (much of which belongs in philosopy rather than physics).
The summary is using one such metaphysical interpretation, called the Copenhagen interpretation, which has more "magic" than most (spooky, faster-than-light action at a distance; wavefunctions that collapse when I, the Observer, looks at them, but not when anyone else does), and might be the most confusing one to the public (though admittedly, all the interpretations are confusing to some extent).
1. Re:Media and the Copenhagen interpretation by PPalmgren · 2014-11-04 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you can help me out since you seem knowledgeable on this stuff.
  I've always wondered if there's a possibility that quantum mechanics is simply our system for making sense of things we don't have the ability to measure, and that it might not actually reflect the micro-scale actions going on. As an analogy, 200 years ago we didn't know about the atom because of insufficient tools to develop and test the hypothesis. Now we a fairly decent ability to resolve tiny particles but are severly limited in this endeavor when it comes to measuring tiny durations of time.
  I guess, how can we be certain that our electron cloud interpretation is correct and that the position of the electron in that cloud, outside orbitals/valences, isn't important? If we had the ability to measure things at that fine of detail, how would that effect quantum mechanics?
2. Re:Media and the Copenhagen interpretation by __aaltlg1547 · 2014-11-04 02:07 · Score: 2
  
  That's the 'hidden variables' question, and currently there's no way to answer it.
  However the 'spooky action at a distance' handwavery explanation of the Copenhagen interpretation is not an indispensible part of the Copenhagen interpretation. One can simply observe that when one of a pair of entangled particles is measured, the state of the entangled particle is logically constrained rather than teleported to its position. And the "measured" portion can be dispensed with as well if you understand that there is zero difference between being measured by experimental apparatus and interacting with another particle so as to change its quantum state. This removes the spooky aspect of privileging the Experimenter. The experimenter is no diifferent from any other nonempty set of fermions, aside from being more complicated than many.
3. Re:Media and the Copenhagen interpretation by amaurea · 2014-11-04 03:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I think it is important to distinguish between three things here. The theory (the equations and predictions of measurements), our interpretations of the theory (what picture of the world we associate with the theory), and the real world itself.
  For example, let's say that you need a theory for describing how a hypothetical time-ray works. The observed effect is that physical processes of whatever it is shot at occur at twice the rate as before compared to the rest of the world. This is straightforward to measure and can be modeled exactly using equations. But how should we interpret what happens? One interpretation is that the time-ray speeds up the passing of time for the object it hits. But another, equivalent interpretation is that the ray slows down the passing of time for the entire rest of the world, and protects only the target object from the effect. These interpretations both lead to the same observations, since all we can observe are the *relative* rate of events, but they make different claims about what actually happens. In this case one interpretation is clearly more appealing because it is simpler, but no experiment could distinguish between them. So in some sense the distinction is meaningless.
  Similarly, the theory of general relativity, which is our modern description of gravity, can be interpreted as spacetime being curved by the presence of energy, and the curvature affecting the paths of objects. But it is also possible to interpret it as spacetime being flat, but filled with a field of self-interacting, massless, spin-2 particles (gravitons). Both these pictures lead to the same predictions, so in that sense they are the same theory. But they are clearly very different descriptions of reality.
  The point of making the distinction between theory and interpretation is that the former can be tested, while the latter can't. The theory of general relativity has been put through a huge number of tests, and it has held up under all of them. Like most theories of fundamental physics it has been tested to exquisite precision, and if it is wrong, it has to be wrong in a very subtle way. But the interpretation of general relativity can't be tested at all. Which one to use is a bit like choosing whether to use a cartesian or polar coordinate system in maths. One might be easier to use or prettier in some situations, but they give exactly the same results.
  The same applies to quantum physics to perhaps an even greater extent. Quantum Electrodynamics, one of the building blocks of the standard model of particle physics, may be the most precistly tested theory in science. The archetypical example is the anomalous dipole moment which is correctly predicted to 14 decimal places (all the ones we could measure so far). So the theory part of quantum physics is trustworthy. It may not be 100% correct, but it is pretty damned close. But there is a plethora of interpretations of quantum physics, and these are completely uncertain - we can't tell them apart because they are mathematically equivalent and hence all make the same predictions. Each one corresponds to a different real world, but we can't tell which one it is.
  Electrons bound to atoms are relatively simple quantum systems, and I don't think our ability to measure them is the limiting factor. It sounds like you are arguing for a Hidden Variables description of the electron, where a point-like electron moves around the nucleus in an well-defined particle orbit like a planet, and it only looks like it's this complex non-local wavefunction (electron cloud) because it moves to quicky for us to resolve its actual orbit. The good news is that it it is possible to interpret standard quantum physics that way
4. Re:Media and the Copenhagen interpretation by hawkinspeter · 2014-11-04 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  It's always possible that there'll be a new paradigm that helps explain why nature behaves like it does, but quantum mechanics is so astoundingly accurate that it's pretty much certain that nature really is quantum mechanical (along with all the non-intuitive "weirdness" that entails).
  
  There's several experiments that can be done (e.g. Young's Two-Slit, or explaining how a diffraction grating can reflect light) that very clearly demonstrate that reality is behaving in a quantum mechanical way and the results are impossible to explain in a classical manner.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
5. Re:Media and the Copenhagen interpretation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  That's the 'hidden variables' question, and currently there's no way to answer it.
  Look up the Bell Inequalities. There are no hidden variables (assuming Lorentz Invariance, which everyone does).
6. Re:Media and the Copenhagen interpretation by mcswell · 2014-11-08 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks, I wondered about that! I had thought that it was more like "When two identical photons are coupled and the phase of one is *measured*, then thanks to the magic of quantum mechanics, the phase of the other photon has also been *measured*." Are these statements equivalent?
yes by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-03 23:27 · Score: 0

The foundations of a quantum, photon-powered distributed social network.
believe you must by fdWv+Harry · 2014-11-03 23:59 · Score: 1

The magic is still strong in Austria .And funding you get for headlines....
Photons coupling in glass fibers? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 00:35 · Score: 0

My thoughts: Get a room! Think of the children!
Very Good Children by pubwvj · 2014-11-04 01:46 · Score: 1

Very good, Children. You have made the next step towards understanding our instantaneous communications and teleportation device methods for traveling from the stars to visit you. Soon we will welcome you to the Galactic Community.
Your next step is to quell your war like tendencies so we can let you out of your playpen.
1. Re:Very Good Children by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Very good, Children. You have made the next step towards understanding our instantaneous communications and teleportation device methods for traveling from the stars to visit you. Soon we will welcome you to the Galactic Community.
  Your next step is to quell your war like tendencies so we can visit you to eat your delicious flesh.
  FTFY
TLDR: It's just math. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 06:25 · Score: 0

TLDR: It's just math.
Ironic captcha: nebulous
This won't stop eavesdropping for the plebes... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-04 09:32 · Score: 0

Even if this works exactly as the Slashdot post says it would, it will only secure data over a single link. Right now, the ISPs happily give a copy of all network traffic to the government at their location(s), between links. So, no change.
good for science, not so good for privacy by dsoodak · 2014-11-04 14:04 · Score: 1

The most immediate effect is to make it easier to investigate some of the more esoteric predictions of QM. With this and similar components you could also potentially build an optical general purpose quantum computer (the ones on the market are not general purpose), which would finally make things like exact computational chemistry possible, but unfortunately would also make public key encryption obsolete (though AES will only have to double in key length). It could also be used to make quantum cryptography (which isn't actually necessary unless we have quantum computers, though I sometimes wonder if someone like the NSA has already has already put together spectacularly bulky and expensive versions with current technology). As pointed out in another post, we would also need to upgrade our fiber optic communication hardware so for a while we might be in a situation where only large corporate and government interests will be able to afford it.
What this means in practical QIS terms by quax · 2014-11-04 16:06 · Score: 1
- Potentially longer quantum encryption transmission via optical cable (record at at this time).
- Better quantum information channels would also help with qubit teleportation.
1. Re:What this means in practical QIS terms by quax · 2014-11-04 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  Didn't get the links properly in:
  http://www.technologyreview.co...
  http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...
Also works for pennies by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-05 05:57 · Score: 0

This is easy. It also works for pennies. Couple two with superglue edge to ege, one heads up, the other heads down. Now flip one, and the other one, astonishingly, also flips.
1. Re:Also works for pennies by mcswell · 2014-11-08 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I assume this was sarc. But if not, the point is that the conjoined particles aren't even near each other.