Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Satellite Breaks Distance Record For Quantum-Key Exchange (sciencemag.org)

slew writes: Science Magazine reports a team of physicists using the Chinese Micius satellite (launched back in August 2016) have sent quantum-entangled photons from a satellite to ground stations separated by 1200 kilometers, smashing the previous world record. Sending entangled photons through space instead of optical fiber networks with repeaters has long been the dream of those promoting quantum-key exchange for modern cryptography. Don't hold your breath yet, as this is only an experiment. They were only able to recover about 1000 photons out of about 6 billion sent and the two receiving stations were on Tibetan mountains to reduce the amount of air that needed to be traversed. Also the experiment was done at night to minimize interference from the sun. Still, baby steps... Next steps for the program: a bigger satellite for more power and moving to quantum teleportation instead of simple key exchange. The results of the experiment were published in the journal Science.

42 comments

  1. Tibet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did they get the consent of the Tibetans before emplacing their receivers on Tibet's mountains?

    1. Re:Tibet by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      Yay, rather than celebrate the advance of science for all mankind, we can whine, moan and troll about politics.

      That's just his defense mechanism. It kicks in whenever China is better than the USA at something.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Tibet by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Did they get the consent of the Tibetans before emplacing their receivers on Tibet's mountains?

      They didn't have to, which is why that should be where we put the Thirty Meter Telescope. The seeing is better at 17,000 ft anyway.

    3. Re:Tibet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The mountains are pretty big, I'm sure no one will notice.
      Plus fuck you, Tibet is China silly troll.

    4. Re: Tibet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Crimea is Russian. What a superpower wants, a superpower gots.

    5. Re: Tibet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So for everything then except sex?

      Everyone knows americas know how to fuck people. Problem is...we don't like being fucked back.

        xD

    6. Re: Tibet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think they know... The Chinese mastered lovemaking, the Americans mastered looking in the mirror while f**king something.

  2. And the other "valid" signal?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So they sent entangled photons to ground, and there was a second signal, one that says "entanglement successful, photon is valid", and that was send how exactly? The signal they use to filter out all the other photons detected. That signal, the one that's actually carrying the real information here.... the one any attacker would attack if this was ever used in main stream use.

    Look, I have a space based machine that fires ping pong balls at the earth, it paints them with random paint, and spins them in random ways. There is no stastical correlation between spin and paint color and each parameter is totally randomly selected.

    Sometimes a machine ejects two at the same time, I call these "entangled". They have the same paint as a consequence of being ejected at the same time from the same machine, and they have related spins because they were ejected at the same time from the same machine imparting the same spin.

    I send Alice below ping pong balls from a group of these ball firing machines, if I get two at the same time of the same color. (My entangled ones). I keep one and tell her below that this one is a valid entangled ping pong ball. I tell her this "valid" signal via a more reliable link. She uses it to select the subset of valid ping-pong balls from invalid ones.

    My ping pong ball machines pass a nice Bells test, as long as I prefitler so we only consider "entangled" ping pong balls.

    If I go check my spin for these "valid" balls, I know that stastically significantly the spin on hers will correlate.

    There is no quantum magic in my ping pong ball machine. It is doing exactly what you expect it to do. The act of filtering the subset of pingpong balls by properties likely to select ones ejected from the same machine at the same time, is what lifts the few events and makes them stastically significant.

    1. Re: And the other "valid" signal?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bell inequalities

    2. Re:And the other "valid" signal?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mods, before modding this up, be aware the poster(s) posts the same misunderstood garbage to nearly every Slashdot story involving anything quantum mechanics related. The poster fundamentally misunderstands entanglement experiments and the variety of possible setups that have been in use for decades now. Yet the poster always disregards any detailed and/or cited reply showing how wrong it is, while taking time to attack others replies that are less intelligent and acting as if that validates their armchair disproof of quantum mechanics. Mean while, those with backgrounds in the subject realize it is a waste of time trying to correct the same mistakes when it gets spammed on so many articles, and yield not because the parent is correct, but because the parent has too much free time and is too dense to argue with.

    3. Re:And the other "valid" signal?? by rpresser · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA. Or if you can't, I'll summarize.

      The satellite generated entangled photon pairs, sending them down to two separated ground stations in the Himalayas.

      One out of every 6 million pairs was received properly (how they could tell, I don't know. Time codes?). Polarization measured at each ground station and correlated (via normal phone or perhaps Internet). Correlation was nonrandom due to Bell's Inequality, demonstrating that entanglement survived the transmission from space.

    4. Re: And the other "valid" signal?? by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

      Since it is a telecom experiment, the Bell 202 inequality is the most appropriate.

    5. Re:And the other "valid" signal?? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      Getting ahold of the keys to encryption by a man in the middle attack approach is on a short list of 'easy' ways to defeat encryption. A 100% secure method of transmitting the keys globally would be a major advancement. You can then send your message classically with far less worry.

    6. Re: And the other "valid" signal?? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Since it is a telecom experiment, the Bell 202 inequality is the most appropriate.

      Finding the few thousand good pairs out of the billions of bad is looking for a needle in a Hayes stack.

    7. Re:And the other "valid" signal?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't play on his level--don't post AC.

    8. Re:And the other "valid" signal?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works one out of six million attempts.

      That always strikes as being completely worthless doesn't it?

      Perhaps the validation mechanism is cryptographically resilient enough and the processing and transport needs small enough, that at some point in the future a failure rate of 99.999983% will be good enough for some purpose.

  3. Re:So, with all this Trump legal mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, a legal team won't help you anyway.

  4. Actual communication? by LaughingRadish · · Score: 1

    Did this include actual communication? How closer is humanity to having a working ansible?

    I'm talking about the so-far science fiction device for instantaneous communication, not the open-source automation engine.

    1. Re:Actual communication? by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      None of these experiments have actual communication faster than light.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      In physics, the no-communication theorem is a no-go theorem from quantum information theory which states that, during measurement of an entangled quantum state, it is not possible for one observer, by making a measurement of a subsystem of the total state, to communicate information to another observer.

    2. Re:Actual communication? by rpresser · · Score: 1

      RTFA, then RTFScience so you understand it. Entanglement will never result in instantaneous communication.

    3. Re:Actual communication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Wikipedia said so? It must be an immutable fact...

    4. Re:Actual communication? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Oh Wikipedia said so? It must be an immutable fact...

      No, it's not a fact, it's a theory. And the Wikipedia article isn't meant a definitive proof. It's a starting point to learn more about it. You are encouraged to check out the references at the bottom.

  5. Quantum Entanglement != Instant Communication by Mortimer82 · · Score: 1

    As much as I love the idea of an ansible, and while I'm no physicist, I have seen it stated time and time again that quantum entanglement doesn't get you instantaneous communication.

  6. What interests me... by Nutria · · Score: 1

    is that they're publishing it in Science.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
  7. Re: Free Tibet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolutely, and free Tibetan Gerbils too.

  8. Not an example of instantaneous communication? by KennethLyon · · Score: 1

    Quantum teleportation is the even that's theoretically faster than light by way of being instant, regardless of distance, correct? Am I correct in thinking this is more of that a quantum entangled signal was transmitted in a waveform and they successful read the spin on roughly 1000 of the point resolved photons?

    1. Re:Not an example of instantaneous communication? by KennethLyon · · Score: 1

      Quantum teleportation is the one* that's theoretically faster than light I hate typos :-/ Sorry about that.

    2. Re:Not an example of instantaneous communication? by burtosis · · Score: 1

      There are methods of sending information 'faster than light' but essentially the problem is you can only put your signal on top of random states. Untill you measure those and send them at classical light speed, you will have no idea what is sent and therefore sending information (or energy) instantly is by all understanding and experiment, not possible.

    3. Re: Not an example of instantaneous communication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum teleportation is the even that's theoretically faster than light by way of being instant, regardless of distance, correct?

      Incorrect.

      Rest of your post flushed down the toilet, where it belongs.

  9. Nice result by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    "They were only able to recover about 1000 photons out of about 6 billion sent"

    My cellphone provider's electrons also only achieve a similar result, judging by the quality of the talks.

    1. Re:Nice result by Jamu · · Score: 1

      -68 dB doesn't seem too bad.

      --
      Who ordered that?
  10. Um, actually, by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Are 1000 out 6 billion distinguishable from random chance, or even useful?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Um, actually, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only a few pure entanglement states and, depending on the medium, single or double digit number of mixed-states.

      Randomness would have successful attempts in the hundreds of millions to about a billion.

  11. It maybe not quantum, and not cryptography. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's simply sending light from 1 satellite to 2 ground stations in form of key exchanges (duplicated messages in very few bits). And there are not any another vectors as the bidirectional communication.

    It was made at night and without clouds, because the Sun and the clouds suppress these light's signals. All it is classical physic.

    If a station loses the reception of this key then the another station might not know that the former station had lost this key. And it sounds a fatality.

    It gives nothing special about quantum.

  12. Is it faster than light or not? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    So they sent them to the space station and now a satellite and I think the space station one blew up on launch but have they determined yet if it's faster than light transmission? The theory is that you had to physically move the particles at least once away from each other so you can't violate causation or something like that. But has it been proven?

  13. SHUT THE FUCK UP by sexconker · · Score: 1

    "Quantum teleportation" is not teleportation. You cannot use entanglement to violate causality. You are not exceeding c.
    STOP REPEATING THIS BULLSHIT.

  14. Chinese Satellite Breaks Distance Record For Quant by Goondra · · Score: 1

    Bell's inequality is incomplete. It does not hold for all possible hidden variables. It holds only for those hidden variables that repeat under different experimental configurations (device orientations). But there are other hidden variables that do not repeat. Hidden variables belonging to the reals do not repeat. Every instance of a real random variable is unique. The probability of two instances being equal is zero, exactly zero. What this means for the Chinese news story is that nothing special has been demonstrated. It is expected that a local model based on real hidden variables will violate Bell's (and other) inequalities. Quantum entanglement has not been demonstrated by the Chinese project. Local entanglement can reproduce their results.

    --
    DGDanforth
  15. Actually the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more chaff there is the harder for any decryption to find the real data.

  16. That's a bit of pocket loss :p by Shaix · · Score: 1

    Just a slight pocket loss there kek...