you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -12 points 10 months ago (20 children)
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Did you even read the article? Its mentioned right at the beginning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Yeah and we already have post quantum encryption so what reason do we need a quantum internet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Pretty sure this was made clear in the article but... I'll outline the little I know on the subject as a complete layman.

    Currently we have been able to use quantum effects to create single runs of fibre that cannot be intercepted. That is, if the data is intercepted by any known means the receiver will be able to detect this.

    The shortcoming of this method, is that of course when you need to amplify the signal, that's generally a "store and forward" operation and thus would also break this system's detection. You could I guess perform the same operation wherever it is amplified, but it's then another point in which monitoring could happen. If you want 1 trusted sender, 1 trusted receiver and nothing in between, this is a problem.

    What this article is saying, is they have found a way to amplify the information without ever "reading" it. Therefore keeping the data integrity showing as "unseen" (for want of a better word). As such this will allow "secure" (I guess?) fibre runs of greater distances in the future.

    Now the article does go into some detail about how this works and why. But, for the basic aspect of why this is a good and useful thing. This is pretty much what you need to know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Nar I get that. My point is what's the point of transferring quantum information. The only advantage I can see is doing a single quantum computation via decentralised nodes that are a significant distance from each other. But by the nature of quantum computations its not a useful thing to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [+] 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    We have proven that's impossible. Speed limit c Einstein enforced.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Why impossible? Genuinely curious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Physics. But their is scientific consensus that you can't transfer information faster than light. Our maths for both quantum physics and Einsteinian physics have both proven its impossible. Ohh and it fundamentally breaks causation. Grandfather paradox type shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I've been lead to believe that it's like if the speed of causality is the north pole. You can approach it and reach the north pole but once you try to surpass the point at the north, you begin to move in the opposite direction.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    To simplify - c is the maximum speed at which a "cause" can be transferred.

    If I send a radio signal to turn on a light, and the light will only turn on in response to that signal, the signal cannot travel faster than c otherwise it would not have been able to turn on the light.

  • source
  • parent