this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2024
179 points (93.2% liked)

Technology

60103 readers
4624 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Advance opens door for secure quantum applications without specialized infrastructure

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mPony@lemmy.world 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

#Hey Kids! Guess which word is getting shoehorned into EVERY technology discussion in 2025 until it becomes meaningless?

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 33 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Only limited by the speed of light,

What exactly do you think the normal ip data is limited by on the same optical cable?

I thought we were talking about quantum entaglement and spooky action at a distance, which is famously not limited by the speed of light?

Am I missing something obvious?

[–] htrayl@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, quantum entanglement occurs without the speed of light, but we famously cannot interpret information from it faster than the speed of light - it isn't FTL communication.

[–] feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)
[–] Homescool@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Haha yeah. What?

[–] ivanafterall@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Got 'em!(?)

[–] kayzeekayzee@lemmy.blahaj.zone 64 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

The article starts by doing the "quantum" thing that really irks me, where they use confusing terminology to make it sound like "FTL communication" without actually saying it. This is garbage that doesn't actually matter to the article.

Basically, they found a way to send quantum entangled photons (which exist in a very delicate unobserved state) through existing fiber optic infrastructure without interfering with the standard internet information already travelling through the fiber. A lot of the difficulty with this is due to signal noise that needs to be filtered out. This will be useful communicating quantum measurements over long distances.

[–] Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago (2 children)

It should be a legal requirement to link the actual research paper at the top of science articles

[–] SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I've seen a lot of articles that were like "scientists do this!!" And never link to the actual study (not including this article)

What happened to citing your sources?

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

2nd paragraph wasn't good enough, huh?

[–] Pregnenolone@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

I didn’t say they didn’t link the paper.

[–] DemBoSain@midwest.social 16 points 3 days ago (1 children)

"Only limited by the speed of light..."

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They then go on to describe what sounds like

  • transmitting a single specific photon through ‘the internet’, implying start-to-finish with routing (not possible without special infrastructure)

  • Use that photon to then send information instantly by manipulating its entangled sibling (also not possible)

So yeah this article is a crock of shit.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The article did not describe either of those things that way. Cynicism is overriding reading comprehension.

[–] slackassassin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 days ago

The article starts by doing the "quantum" thing that really irks me

Basically, they found a way to send quantum entangled photons

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 37 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

This is a cool progress forward.

TLDR; Researchers used a 30km optical fiber. They found a wavelength that was off-to-the-side that would mean the quantum entangled photons could ride in the same fiber without interfering (or being interfered with) the classical fiber optic communications. One current shortcoming for scaling this up is that the quantum photons would not survive optical repeaters commonly used for extremely long distant fiber runs. That doesn't take away from the success of their research, just puts it in perspective for the next researchers to tackle at some point in the future.

[–] HelloHotel@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Is the reason (Im assuming you ment) it can't survive a repeater survive a repeater because it collects and recreates the particle? These cables are ment for logical data transport.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago

Yes. Keep in mind nothing in the article talks about the fiber repeater. That is my addition with some knowledge of telecommunications infrastructure. Because fiber optic cable isn't perfect, there is light loss over distance. Different grades of fiber have different levels of loss across distance. An example of high end fiber would be ZBLAN. There is experimental level manufacturing (successful in small quantities already) of producing ZBLAN fiber in space to improve the fiber quality, but that makes it much more expensive. Once the limits of the fiber are reached a telecommunications provider can place a fiber repeater to double the length by intercepting the light (signal) and reproducing it (blinking new laser light) into the next segment of fiber.

However, these repeaters create NEW light, and that would mean the quantum information is not carried over in present day fiber repeaters. Even measuring the entangled photon to recreate it would break the quantum state of the entangled photon at the source, so current means can't be used as a repeater for quantum data.

[–] Opisek@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

So they've shown they can send light over a cable designed to transfer light.

The impressive thing is of course managing to get one specific photon to one specific location. Still, what benefits does that have over the standard encoding?

I guess this technique might have a lower error rate and higher distance, because it's binary by nature with no quantization needed. But you don't need the quantum entanglement part at all for this.

Edit: Reading is hard! This is indeed exciting for security. I wonder how it fairs against a very powerful MitM though.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's physically impossible to intercept an entangled photon without disrupting the entanglement. The act of observing the photon collapses the quantum uncertainty of it's state, so even the most sophisticated MitM attempt is going to immediately break the link.

[–] Opisek@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (2 children)

But can you detect the link being broken by someone other than your intended communication partner?

If A sends a particle to B, couldn't M intercept A's particle and send a different particle to B? Kind of like intercepting Diffie Hellman. A and B will both share some information with M, but not with each other.

[–] Maxxie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 days ago

M cannot replicate the particle after they read it, so A and B will detect M's attempt when they compare results.

The same as classical one-way encryption, it only works through authenticated channel tho. It's not magic, you have to have some kind of pre-existing secret or rely on third-party authentication

[–] knightly@pawb.social 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

But can you detect the link being broken by someone other than your intended communication partner?

Yes, because breaking the entanglement destroys the link between the photons received at either end.

Observing an entangled photon requires extremely precise timing, the lightspeed lag on the line has to be known down to the nanosecond to ensure that the photon received is paired with the photon at the other end. Even if a MitM wanted to try retransmitting the quantum states it observes on the line, they wouldn't be able to do so without introducing enough lag to desync the connection.

Alternatively, if M tried sending their own random data in sync with the expected timing, then the bits received by B would only have a 50-50 chance of matching the bits sent from A. Any encryption based on that data would almost immediately begin to suffer a 100% error rate.

[–] JoShmoe@ani.social -2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

If I understand it right, this could enable real time connectivity between client and server.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 30 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

Nope, quantum entanglement can't enable FTL communication. "Real time" still involves lightspeed lag.

What it does is allows random bits of information to be transmitted in an entangled state. You send an entangled pair of photons, and find out afterwards who got a 1 or a 0 when the photons are observed at either end. They call it 'quantum teleportation' because both ends know what the other got, and the information about who got what can't be intercepted without disrupting the enganglement.

Once they can figure out how to preserve that uncertainty through repeaters, switches, and routers, then we can have a quantum internet that uses encryption based on shared quantum random numbers. It's likely to be necessary soon since quantum computers might only be a few years from breaking current common encryption techniques.

I also want to clarify, we can create asymmetrical encryption algorithms that are quantum resistant but not quantum themselves

Quantum encryption probably won't be in mass use anytime soon, but for extra sensitive applications

[–] shish_mish@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

Thank you for your explanation.

[–] JoShmoe@ani.social 0 points 3 days ago

Yup, definitely. Took the words right out of my mouth.