MIT's Peter Shor explains why he devised an algorithm for a quantum computer that could unravel our online data encryption http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029445.100-my-quantum-algorithm-wont... // not worth saying this may be relevant to landspeeder development... 'Electromagnon' effect couples electricity and magnetism in materials http://phys.org/news/2013-11-electromagnon-effect-couples-electricity-magnet... "It has been well known for a long time that electricity and magnetism are two sides of the same coin. Waves in free space, such as visible light or mobile phone radiation, always consist of both an electric and a magnetic component. When it comes to material properties, however, electricity and magnetism have been viewed as separate topics." To Settle Infinity Dispute, a New Law of Logic // not _really https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20131126-to-settle-infinity-question... note: enormous problems with this. mathematics as if short-fiction. what if concept/cosmology is being influenced by language framework (q: is truth bounded or infinite). hierarchical nesting core of set theory, numberline in this context, why assumed 1d/2d versus N-dimensional. issues of bounded infinity everywhere (particle ladder, consciousness), perhaps zero is issue (empty set?) -- metaphysics seem completely off, being and nothingess as set relations not grounded in reality it seems. (note: why three zeroes allowed to diagram infinity as a first question, what if number line is hiearchical, zero different dimension than 1...N) Your Next Phone Will Be The Ultimate Surveillance Machine // via digg http://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/your-next-phone-will-be-the-ultimate-s... The internet mystery that has the world baffled // via digg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10468112/The-inte... // consider consolidating many credit cards into one card with bluetooth, // how if that signal is hacked, access to eight cards combined the bounty... Soon, You Might Pay for Everything With a Coin // via digg http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/ideas/2013/11/soon-you-might-pay-for-everyth... [correlation between money and desire. what happens when truth is separated from exchange, kept outside or removed from it. what is the guarantee: in <blank> we trust?] Watch The Idea, the First Animated Film to Deal with Big, Philosophical Ideas (1932) http://www.openculture.com/2013/11/the-idea-1932.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MplLxhyzWSg Australia's Using Pop Radio to Track Space Junk http://gizmodo.com/australias-using-pop-radio-to-track-space-junk-1474126810 [quote] 4 Great Tech Ideas That Flopped // via digg http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pogue-4-great-tech-ideas-th... "The plug-and-play gadget: A spinoff of the PalmPilot called The Handspring Visor held much of the same attraction as the PhoneBloks. It was a handheld organizer with a big cartridge slot on the back. Into it you could snap a range of accessories: more storage, a GPS receiver, a camera, a cellular transmitter, a remote control, a Bluetooth module, an MP3 module or a voice recorder. The Visors were on the market for about four years (1999 to 2003) and have fans to this day. But clearly, the concept of interchangeable gadget parts alone isn’t enough to start a revolution." (note: the above article mentions something repeatedly endlessly about PDA development, that it no longer exists, especially in the context of the Handspring which preceded and was probably a trial for the modularity of the iPhone and iPod Touch (a PDA or networked digital assistant). the Handspring was certainly limited unlike the Apple ecosystem approach which could expand exponentially and had wide software integration, and thus the concept lives on in another product line and its development yet is consistently not attributed this way.) in-article url: Why Snap-Together Cell Phones Will Never Work http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-snap-together-cell-phon... rel. [video] PhoneBLocks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDAw7vW7H0c tuning of active exhaust systems (kaaaars) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-tips/chamber-music-of-a-diffe... [video] Siberian Ice Drummers http://www.snowaddiction.org/2013/11/the-coolest-music-in-the-world-listen-t... Hüsker Dü - Hare Krsna http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3iXCEhHdUM Hüsker Dü - Eight Miles High http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBKyBlJ_JN8 Hüsker Dü - New Day Rising http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND3haD-c0lw --- ring as platform --- emfs-cellphone/linear hall-effect sensor, gyro-mapping bt as datalogger pole-mounted sensor+computer spatio-temp (freq) excavation/stratigraphy 2 axis or 3 axis, nfc/bt, archeo-GRID SENSOR RINGS - ZigBee comms/authentication - potential follow on box/device, monitor signal spacetime within map framework TSCM monitoring of area (radiation, signals, frequencies, etc) integrated in visual real-time data model LED carpet turns the floor into a screen (with video) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029455.300-led-carpet-turns-the-floo... (note: consider possibility of tempoary maze or labyrinth, especially crypto or security applications, otherwise invisible) [image] ex. electromagnetic aesthetics as context http://lostvhs.com/2013/11/17/point-blank/ How Braille Was Invented http://gizmodo.com/how-braille-was-invented-1471756840 (invention, innovation, resistance, tragedy, victory) Dead Kennedys - California Über Alles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW8UlY8eXCk Kitsch Palace : Das Model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J031_IrO24M This New Polymer Regenerates Large Parts of Itself, Like Lizards Do http://gizmodo.com/this-new-polymer-regenerates-large-parts-of-itself-lik-14... Researchers discover roots of superfluorescent bursts from quantum wells http://phys.org/news/2013-11-roots-superfluorescent-quantum-wells.html [quote] ...mysteries remained, especially in results obtained at low or zero magnetic fields. Kono said the team didn't understand at the time why the wavelength of the burst changed over its 100-picosecond span. Now they do. //... Kono said superfluorescence is a well-known many-body, or cooperative, phenomenon in atomic physics. Many-body theory gives physicists a way to understand how large numbers of interacting particles like molecules, atoms and electrons behave collectively. Superfluorescence is one example of how atoms under tight controls collaborate when triggered by an external source of energy. //... "The quantum well, as before, consisted of stacked blocks of an indium gallium arsenide compound separated by barriers of gallium arsenide. "It's a unique, solid-state environment where many-body effects completely dominate the dynamics of the system," Kono said. "When a strong magnetic field is applied, electrons and holes are fully quantized – that is, constrained in their range of motion—just like electrons in atoms," he said. "So the essential physics in the presence of a high magnetic field is quite similar to that in atomic gases. But as we decrease and eventually eliminate the magnetic field, we're entering a regime atomic physics cannot access, where continua of electronic states, or bands, exist." [unquote] {educational fair-use of copyright, 2013} ∎ ♕ ♞
From: brian carroll <electromagnetize@gmail.com> To: cypherpunks@cpunks.org Sent: Sunday, December 1, 2013 8:42 PM Subject: audiovisual (urls)
MIT's Peter Shor explains why he devised an algorithm for a quantum computer that could unravel our online data encryption http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029445.100-my-quantum-algorithm-wont...
From that article: Quantum cryptography can't be broken by factorisation. Could it one day replace standard cryptosystems? For short distances it wouldn't be too hard to build a quantum key distribution network to encrypt data. Over longer distances, you would need quantum repeaters every 50 kilometres or so on the fibre-optic network, as it's difficult to maintain a quantum state over long distances. Even if they are cheap by then, it's a lot of investment. =====end of quote===== My fiber optic invention has a certain relevance here. A typical modern germania-doped-core (GeO2) silica optical fiber has a loss of about 0.19 decibels/kilometer (db/km). Over 50 km, the loss is (50 km x 0.19 db/km) = 9.5 db, ignoring splice losses. (A good splice has a loss of about 0.10 db.) So, the quote above is indicating that above a loss of about 10 db, a quantum system is hard to maintain. I have suggested in my patent application that isotope-modified fiber (where the Si-29 level is brought from nature's 4.67% (atom/atom) to 0.10 %, the loss might decrease by a factor of 10 to 20. This means that the ultimate distance limit might increase to 50 x 10 = 500 km, to 50 x 20 = 1000 km. That would be a major improvement if it works. The reason that this new fiber would be necessary is this: Ever since the invention of the EDFA (Erbium-doped fiber amplifier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_amplifier ) in 1986, it has been used to amplify IR signals in the 1510-1560 nanometer band. Using it and ordinary signals (not quantum signals) it is possible to go about 125 kilometers between amplifiers. (In other words, that usage tolerates about 25 db of optical loss before an EDFA is necessary.) However, apparently an EDFA cannot be used to amplify a quantum system. http://www.nict.go.jp/en/press/2010/02/08-1.html Or, at least, not directly. Jim Bell
On Mon, Dec 02 2013, Jim Bell wrote:
My fiber optic invention has a certain relevance here. A typical modern germania-doped-core (GeO2) silica optical fiber has a loss of about 0.19 decibels/kilometer (db/km). Over 50 km, the loss is (50 km x 0.19 db/km) = 9.5 db, ignoring splice losses. (A good splice has a loss of about 0.10 db.) So, the quote above is indicating that above a loss of about 10 db, a quantum system is hard to maintain. I have suggested in my patent application that isotope-modified fiber (where the Si-29 level is brought from nature's 4.67% (atom/atom) to 0.10 %, the loss might decrease by a factor of 10 to 20. This means that the ultimate distance limit might increase to 50 x 10 = 500 km, to 50 x 20 = 1000 km. That would be a major improvement if it works. The reason that this new fiber would be necessary is this: Ever since the invention of the EDFA (Erbium-doped fiber amplifier http:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_amplifier ) in 1986, it has been used to amplify IR signals in the 1510-1560 nanometer band. Using it and ordinary signals (not quantum signals) it is possible to go about 125 kilometers between amplifiers. (In other words, that usage tolerates about 25 db of optical loss before an EDFA is necessary.) However, apparently an EDFA cannot be used to amplify a quantum system. http: //www.nict.go.jp/en/press/2010/02/08-1.html Or, at least, not directly.
While reducing loss will certainly help, the NICT paper you link to will not. Quantum cryptography relies on only having a single entangled particle going to each end, so that if anyone intercepts either particle and attempts to measure whatever property you're using to derive the key (polarization generally), the keys will not match because the quantum state will be destroyed. The paper you link to talks about creating large numbers of entangled particles. While this is useful for sharing quantum computations over long distances, it is not at all useful for quantum cryptography, because one could intercept a small number of these particles, measure them on each of the possible axes used for the cryptosystem, and figure out the shared key. -- Sean Richard Lynch <seanl@literati.org> http://www.literati.org/~seanl/
From: Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org>
My fiber optic invention has a certain relevance here. A typical modern germania-doped-core (GeO2) silica optical fiber has a loss of about 0.19 decibels/kilometer (db/km). Over 50 km, the loss is (50 km x 0.19 db/km) = 9.5 db, ignoring splice losses. (A good splice has a loss of about 0.10 db.) So, the quote above is indicating that above a loss of about 10 db, a quantum system is hard to maintain. I have suggested in my patent application that isotope-modified fiber (where the Si-29 level is brought from nature's 4.67% (atom/atom) to 0.10 %, the loss might decrease by a factor of 10 to 20. This means that the ultimate distance limit might increase to 50 x 10 = 500 km, to 50 x 20 = 1000 km. That would be a major improvement if it works. The reason that this new fiber would be necessary is this: Ever since the invention of the EDFA (Erbium-doped fiber amplifier http:/ /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_amplifier ) in 1986, it has been used to amplify IR signals in the 1510-1560 nanometer band. Using it and ordinary signals (not quantum signals) it is possible to go about 125 kilometers between amplifiers. (In other words, that usage tolerates about 25 db of optical loss before an EDFA is necessary.) However, apparently an EDFA cannot be used to amplify a quantum system. http: //www.nict.go.jp/en/press/2010/02/08-1.html Or, at least, not directly.
While reducing loss will certainly help, the NICT paper you link to will not. Quantum cryptography relies on only having a single entangled particle going to each end, so that if anyone intercepts either particle and attempts to measure whatever property you're using to derive the key (polarization generally), the keys will not match because the quantum state will be destroyed.
The paper you link to talks about creating large numbers of entangled particles. While this is useful for sharing quantum computations over long distances, it is not at all useful for quantum cryptography, because one could intercept a small number of these particles, measure them on each of the possible axes used for the cryptosystem, and figure out the shared key.
Okay, thank you for clarifying this matter. I merely Google-searched for 'EDFA quantum entanglement' and found and cited this paper, and that only because it referred to the problem of trying to amplify quantum signals through an EDFA. Myself, I am hoping that longer-key public-key cryptosystems will remain unsolved by quantum techniques, at least as long as it takes to get rid of governments. After that, it probably won't matter. As of now, it looks like things will go the way I'd like. Jim Bell
On Tue, Dec 03 2013, Jim Bell wrote:
Okay, thank you for clarifying this matter. I merely Google-searched for 'EDFA quantum entanglement' and found and cited this paper, and that only because it referred to the problem of trying to amplify quantum signals through an EDFA.
No problem. Not having read the actual paper, I'm not even sure what they meant by "noise" preventing amplification of quantum signals in an EDFA. Quantum states cannot be copied, which seems like a more fundamental problem, but perhaps they are talking about the potential for using an EDFA just to create a large number of entangled particles.
Myself, I am hoping that longer-key public-key cryptosystems will remain unsolved by quantum techniques, at least as long as it takes to get rid of governments. After that, it probably won't matter. As of now, it looks like things will go the way I'd like.
I'm fairly optimistic for a couple of different reasons. First of all, progress on quantum computers has been very slow and the experts in the field who have spoken up believe it's unlikely the NSA has a major breakthrough on this front. Second, I'm skeptical that quantum computers can even be made to work at all. While D-Wave and others have built systems that they *believe* are quantum computers and shown some evidence that they behave as one would expect for such devices, nothing has yet been demonstrated that could not easily been achieved with a classical computer, though much of this is due to the small scale of the devices. Even if quantum computers can be made to work, one can hope that by then we'll either have quantum cryptography infrastructure in place (though the need for physical infrastructure scares me here - maybe guerrilla wireless quantum crypto?) or have widespread access to practical quantum-proof public-key crypto. Maybe either the NTRU patent will have expired or we'll have found alternative cryptosystems that do not infringe, ala the Lucas sequence alternative to RSA. Of course, the patent is only a problem in the US and its satellite states anyway. -- Sean Richard Lynch <seanl@literati.org> http://www.literati.org/~seanl/
________________________________ From: Sean Lynch <seanl@literati.org> To: Jim Bell <jamesdbell8@yahoo.com> On Tue, Dec 03 2013, Jim Bell wrote:
Okay, thank you for clarifying this matter. I merely Google-searched for 'EDFA quantum entanglement' and found and cited this paper, and that only because it referred to the problem of trying to amplify quantum signals through an EDFA.
No problem. Not having read the actual paper, I'm not even sure what they meant by "noise" preventing amplification of quantum signals in an EDFA. Quantum states cannot be copied, which seems like a more fundamental problem, but perhaps they are talking about the potential for using an EDFA just to create a large number of entangled particles.
Myself, I am hoping that longer-key public-key cryptosystems will remain unsolved by quantum techniques, at least as long as it takes to get rid of governments. After that, it probably won't matter. As of now, it looks like things will go the way I'd like.
I'm fairly optimistic for a couple of different reasons. First of all, progress on quantum computers has been very slow and the experts in the field who have spoken up believe it's unlikely the NSA has a major breakthrough on this front. Second, I'm skeptical that quantum computers can even be made to work at all. While D-Wave and others have built systems that they *believe* are quantum computers and shown some evidence that they behave as one would expect for such devices, nothing has yet been demonstrated that could not easily been achieved with a classical computer, though much of this is due to the small scale of the devices.
I am limited by the fact that I have only had a couple of classes which touched upon quantum physics (and 35 years ago, to boot), I wonder if there will be some limit to how far these quantum techniques can be used to factor huge numbers. (Speculation warning!) A 1 centimeter difference in altitude in Earth's gravitational field results in about a 1 part in 10**18 time dilation. Even if the atoms making up a quantum computer could be maintained within 1 micron altitude, that would be a time dilation difference of 1 part in 10**22. Could there be an effect which would allow the factorization of numbers up to, say, 22 digits long, but that would fail if the number was 301 digits long? (equivalent to 1024 bits.) Such a computer might be raised into earth orbit to take advantage of micro-gravity effects, but even that might only raise the limit by a few orders of magnitude, say 22+6 = 28. Someone much more familiar with quantum mechanics should be able to shed light on this speculation. Jim Bell
participants (3)
-
brian carroll -
Jim Bell -
Sean Lynch