Quantum internet within grasp as scientists show off entanglement demo
- Reference: 1653823688
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/05/29/quantum_internet_paper/
- Source link:
In recent years, scientists have argued that the quantum internet presents a more desirable network for transferring secure data, in addition to being necessary when connecting multiple quantum systems. All of this has been attracting investment from the [1]US government , among others.
Despite the promise, there are still vital elements missing for the creation of a functional quantum internet.
[2]
Transferring quantum information — the superposition of states — between two network nodes becomes possible through the process of entanglement, which happens when scientists create two or more particles such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the others. In this way, researchers have shown they can "teleport" quantum information between two nodes.
[3]
[4]
Researchers at Qutech, a quantum computing research institute founded in 2014 by Delft University of Technology and the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research, have now demonstrated they can create the effect via an intermediary node, a necessary condition for a working computer network.
As a learning aid in the otherwise difficult to decipher field, PhD student Sophie Hermans and her colleagues named the network nodes with monikers relatable to the infoseccers among us: Alice, Bob and Charlie. Alice and Charlie have no direct connection between them.
[5]
The researchers' demo first creates entangled quantum states between the neighboring nodes: Alice and Bob. The second node, or processor, then stores its entangled state. Next, Bob creates an entangled state with Charlie. The quantum scientists then exploited a peculiar effect known in their field. By measuring the state of Bob, they affect the entanglement, creating a direct connection between Alice and Charlie.
The team subsequently encoded the "message" information on an extra qubit, which when measured along with Charlie’s entangled state, teleports the information to Alice, according to a [6]paper published in Nature this week .
While a significant demo of working concepts that may well become important in quantum networks, as with much in the quantum computing field, practical applications are some way off.
[7]
In an accompanying article, Oliver Slattery, doctor of physics at the Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology in Maryland and Yong-Su Kim, senior researcher at Center for Quantum Information, Korea Institute of Science and Technology, said constant teleportation of information around a quantum network remained some way off.
[8]Protecting data now as the quantum era approaches
[9]BT: 'Quantum radios' could boost 5G network range
[10]IBM: Give us three years to solve quantum computing scaling
[11]Biden orders new quantum push to ensure encryption isn't cracked by rivals
"Hermans et al [have] succeeded in teleporting quantum information between Alice and Charlie — two nodes without a direct connection. This achievement is not only a win for fundamental science but also represents an advance in the real-world problem solving required to move this fascinating quantum application to the next step.
"Reliable teleportation around a quantum network remains some way off, and this work makes clear the massive challenge ahead for the true realization of the quantum internet — but Hermans et al. offer a potential path forward. Increasing the robustness of the memories used to preserve entanglement will lead to even higher entanglement rates, and an improved optical interface will boost the efficiency with which remote nodes are entangled," they said.
[12]
Three network nodes, Alice (A), Bob (B) and Charlie (C), are connected by means of optical fibre links (lines) in a line configuration. Each setup has a communication qubit (purple) that enables entanglement generation with its neighboring node
Nonetheless, the promise of moving quantum data around a network securely has such power the US government is determined not to be left out.
In 2020, the US Department of Energy laid out a "blueprint strategy" to develop a national quantum internet.
Secretary of Energy Dan Brouillette said: "By constructing this new and emerging technology, the United States continues with its commitment to maintain and expand our quantum capabilities."
The [13]US government statement at the time said the quantum internet "could become a secure communications network and have a profound impact on areas critical to science, industry, and national security." ®
Get our [14]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.energy.gov/articles/us-department-energy-announces-61-million-advance-breakthroughs-quantum-information
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YpOYovYYS9CiYugMVtrGyAAAAFY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YpOYovYYS9CiYugMVtrGyAAAAFY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YpOYovYYS9CiYugMVtrGyAAAAFY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YpOYovYYS9CiYugMVtrGyAAAAFY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04697-y
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YpOYovYYS9CiYugMVtrGyAAAAFY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/20/quantum-security-qusecure/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/19/bt_quantum_radios/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/10/ibm_quantum_computing/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/05/us_quantum_initiatives/
[12] https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/05/27/41586_2022_4697_fig1.jpg
[13] https://www.energy.gov/articles/us-department-energy-unveils-blueprint-quantum-internet-launch-future-quantum-internet
[14] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Can you split photons into 3?
You can split photons into 2 lower energy photons, but can you split them into 3? If you can, I can show you why Entanglement is really a bogus filtering effect (your "filter for photons that are successfully entangled", as you put it in that Delft "loophole free proof of entanglement").
Split a photon into 3, P1,P2,P3. By definition they are entangled, but you always add an extra filtering step before your Bells test... you filter for photons with one or two identical properties ("CheckProperties") as proof of successful entanglement, then you measure the other properties ("ProofProperties") and "hey presto" those are the same, so the act of measuring the properties must have set them, you claim.
So, we have 3 "successful" entangled photons, filter for the photons such that CheckProperties(P1) == CheckProperties(P2), ok, so now we have the triplet of entangled photons. If entanglement worked as claimed, then P3 is also entangled, and there is no need to filter for CheckProperties(P3) == CheckProperties(P1) or CheckProperties(P3) == CheckProperties(P2), ProofProperties(P3) will equal ProofProperties(P1) and ProofProperties(P2).
BUT IT WOULD NOT WORK. You would indeed have to filter also for the subset of photons P3 whose CheckProperties(P3) also match CheckProperties(P1) or CheckProperties(P2)....
You do not set the state of photon (or matter), simply by measuring it, and as if by magic the interactions it had in the past, which now are defined, fix themselves up to work with the newly known state, and in turn, the photons/matter that *those* secondary photons/matter interacted with are also partly know, so they change too, and so on propagating throughout the universe, faster than light, backwards in time.... just because you took a measurement, the universe changed to fix itself such that your result would now be correct. When I put it that way doesn't it sound ridiculous?
So what's happening?
You are not measuring the properties of P1, you are measuring the properties of the net effect between detector D1 and the photon P1, between D2 and its photon P2, and between D3 and its photon P3.
It honestly should be obvious to you, that two oscillatory components form a spin, and 3 form a translational 'waddle' ('velocity'), and that you're ignoring the motions in the detector when assuming those properties are solely properties of the 'entangled' photons. You already know from red shift the detector and photons are some sort of net effect, you are ignore that.
It is true that P1, P2 and P3 are in a defined connected state, because you split them from 1 photon. But the detectors are *not* in a unified state. When you filter for CheckProperties(p1) == CheckProperties(p2), you are actually filtering for CheckProperties(net(p1,d1)) == CheckProperties(net(p2,d2)), ensuring that the detector's relationship to the photon is the same for P1 and P2.
The unknown remaining for P3 is D3, or rather net(P3,D3).
That is why you still need to filter for P3 (as measured by detected D3).
---------------
If you cannot split photons into 3, split them into 2 and 2 again to get P1, P2, P3, and P4. Filter to ensure entanglement for P1 to P2 and P2 to P3, then run your ProofProperties against P4 vs the rest.... it won't work. It's just a bit more complicated, and gives you more room to self-delude.
---------------
You can deduce a lot, if you stop simply parroting the falsehood you learned to parrot. Electric must be an oscillating force, all forces must be oscillating because they take time to propagate, time = oscillations of the underlying field. The universe cannot be uniform, and particles, if you could ever see one, (and not just the net effect between them), would be close to specific orientations in that field. Think of a half spin, the F2 flip of that is from the electric field, not the particle. There cannot be 3 independant dimensions, because the 3 dimensions we preceive are 3 net effects. The underlying single force must propagate infinitely fast (H0), and 'mass' must be a repeating pattern that moves net zero in a field relative to an observer.
See those particles apparently spinning backwards in time, as observed in a cloud chamber? Merely shutter effects. The net interaction between the oscillating field and particle. Well seriously, did you never question why those go back in time?
So much is there right in front of you, but first, set aside Schroedinger.
Re: Can you split photons into 3?
Nurse? I'll have what he's having.
Re: Can you split photons into 3?
Yes indeed. I assume you mean, can a photon be split into three entangled photons? Based on that, you ask, "So what's happening?"
For that you must turn to the combined Hamiltonian of the three photons and what happens to it when one of them is measured. And for that you need to understand what a Hamiltonian is and how to manipulate the maths. No. I'm not going to help you there.
Often, rather than split a quantum, it can be easier to entangle two pre-existing quanta. So you would end up say splitting one photon into Alice and Bob's pair, and then entangling Charlie's with Bob's. That's even if photons are the quanta used to create and store the entangled states, as opposed to just transferring them.
The key takeaway here is that you are way out of your depth and talking bollocks.
Re: Can you split photons into 3?
Yes, but it's quantum bollocks, so it's still eligible to have sackfulls of cash chucked at it.
Re: Can you split photons into 3?
Especially if you add blockchain, AI and use it for autonomous flying cars.
Within our grasp
Quantum, like fusion or AI, always seems to be within our grasp and they have been for years.
The human mind, let's call it Real Intelligence (RI), is a marvelous thing for generating ideas. But implementing those ideas always seems to be a bit beyond our grasp.
I am not a scientist, so I can't comment on the significance of these developments (like today's other announcement - using the quantum technique Stimulated Raman Adiabatic Passage in very-long baseline interferometry). But as an observer through the years, I don't expect we will be grasping anything any time soon.
Still, a pint for the boffins who continue to try and understand what's what.
Faster than light, not
Quantum teleportation via entanglement is notorious for taking place instantly, with the information travelling faster than light. Before getting all het up about breaking the laws of physics, it is worth recalling somebody-or-other's theorem that the quantum information cannot be read and interpreted classically until some reference information is received. This reference information is obliged to travel no faster than light - in the present case, the setting-up of the entanglement between Bob and Charlie. In everyday terms, what with the various delays while everybody fiddles around, the connection still works at sublight speed. Still cool, though.