In a slightly retro move, a top Blighto-Dutch boffinry alliance has declared yet another method of creating a practical "qubit" - a building block of the postulated weird yet puissant quantum computers of the future. This time the tiny piece of unknowable information is contained, not in some exotic new ultra-substance, but …
But the statement "and they will be particularly useful for security because they can quickly crack existing codes and create un-crackable codes,"
This sounds just like bollocks !!
is it as good as saying that "hey if we had warp engines we can easily traverse space !!!"
Which is a equally retarted comment :/
Re: im sorry
comment needs more detail
Ie. it is as easy as stating
If we had warp engines we could goto the stars
But nobody actually knows how we could build a ship. how a computer / metals / bio would react going past the speed of light etc etc ...
Yes fundamentally we could go to the stars because the major component needed has been found but in reality it could be useless :/
e.g. we can go that fast but due to some constant need in the universe we die :/
so in the same respect yes we can build a quantum chip but can it actually be used in a simple a manner as they scientist is proposing. yes we can make it but can we really utilize it
LOL true dat
Nothing at all can break a one time pad, because the same ciphertext could have been generated from any of these plaintexts:
ATTACK THE BRIDGE AT NOON
DEFEND THE FORT AT SUNSET
MY DAUGHTER HAS THE PILES
Mine's the one with a Vigenère square in the pocket and a packet of Rizla papers with strange text on them.
Re: LOL true dat
Or put more generally, any encryption where the key contains significantly fewer bits than the data encrypted is (ultimately) at risk.
Each piece of data encrypted reveals further information about the possible set of keys which could have generated the ciphertext from the plaintext. In this sense, we already know how to crack almost all of today's codes algorithmically, but those algorithms require enormous parallel clusters.
The only way we can assure permanent security is, as you mentioned, to use one time pads. Since the key >= data, no repeating pattern exists in the ciphertext.
What is interesting about quantum encryption is that it relies on physics instead of mathematics to keep secrets. I'd be very interested in learning more about it, sometimes it's hard to believe it would even work.
Re : LOL true dat
Agree entirely - NOTHING can break a one time pad !
Anyone downvoting AJS is ignorant
@ Lou - Try reading Schrodinger's Kittens. It's a little hard going, but does go into how Quatum Mechanics can be used to create encryption keys.
@Lionel: Insulting Sarah ?
retarted ? Shurley not
BTW, quantum computers may crack codes , but not create uncrackable codes, just really secure ones. If the hardware does not leak extra photons of course
I don't want to say you've outdone yourself since by now we've come to expect this level of invention, but "quantumly superposited electron moggy" really should be taught in all the particle-bothering textbooks.
The world would be a better place, assuming it survives the dimensionally rending hijinks of the LHC gang.
A qubit is not a cat.
The only paradox lies in illiteracy.
Re : A qubit is not a cat.
On the other hand Qubit sounds quite a good NAME for a cat !
Another qubit discovered?
Soon we'll have enough for a whole qubyte!
Ah, this takes me back to the heady days of non-quantum computing when researchers were coming up almost daily with new kinds of bit. Who could forget, for example, the hole in a piece of cardboard or the fiendishly clever toggle switch?
A more important yet unanswered question...
What was the name of Schrodinger's cat?
And I, for one, welcome our Paradoxically Simultaneously Both Dead And Alive Feline Overlords.
Won't somebody think of the cats?
Maybe we should tip PETA. Just to see into what state they'll collapse.
going to build a computer which exists and doesn't exist at the same time.
Gonna be a bugger to type on.
Only if you look at it
The wave front expressed by such a quantum computer will in fact collapse and thus enter a single state should it be measured. Looking at it with eyes or touching it with fingers is considered measurement and this would destroy the superposition.
Therefore if one could type into this machine without looking at or touching it, it should work very well indeed. There is a reason that trees fall over in the forest when no one is looking.
Now if I could only find a pussy that could be in two places at once... I could eat my cake whilst it is being made.
letters and/or digits
So, exactly like the last computer to be built which had the word "Quantum" associated with it?
Mine's the one with the Microdrive cartridges in the pocket.
Re: Only if you look at it
Sounds remarkably like the new iPhone.
If it doesn't work will it be called a boob?
one time pads...
Once time pads might be crackable if they are not truly random; after all, a one time pad is merely a key that is longer than the plain text; but it still has to be truly random.
That darn superposed cat
What a poseur; but surely the cat is an observer of itself?
All alone the cat licks it's paw and feels a speck of dirt come away from the clean fur.
The cat mews and hears itself
The cat bangs on the feaking lid and vows to scratch the lab technician when it gets out.
The cat thinks, therefore it is.
Re : "The cat thinks, therefore it is."
Blake's Seven anyone?
better still assemble in a clear plastic box, the design requiring flashy lights, and call it ORAC
I think you'll find that quanyum computers will be made from fairy dust.
Apple should make the first quantum computer
It'll deter people from trying to upgrade their machine if they know popping open the box might kill the undead cat that makes everything work.
zombieism, a character of F. domesticus
On a good day, I cannot tell whether my cat is alive or not. So, again, why did Schrodinger find such ambiguity noteworthy?
I think you meant...
... Felis catus (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=9685) rather than F. domesticus.
Johann Christian Polycarp Erxleben used the name F domesticus. This name, and F silvestris domesticus, are sometimes seen, but are not considered valid scientific names under the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. F silvestris is generally adopted for the wild species and F catus is sometimes seen in print for the domestic cat.
Re : zombieism, a character of F. domesticus
I think the important question is whether your cat cares if you are alive or not !
Re : zombieism, a character of F. catus
As any lord of the manor, of course he cares whether his "staff" is alive or not - how else to daily reaffirm his status?
"undead moggy-chip, hefty boffinery mag" Top class, and from Mr Page, so it's a welcome change from articles saying that we should dump the British defence industry and buy American.
Oh, I see we have one of those as well.
Quantum Compters at Rock Bottom Prices!
I have quite few of these boxed up and ready to ship in my garage - no reasonable offer refused - will ship but can't be responsible for contents of box when opened!
only if you...
Then we all have power over... Just by ... we have changed it.
Then what was it?
- Review Apple takes blade to 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display
- Game Theory The agony and ecstasy of SteamOS: WHERE ARE MY GAMES?
- Intel's Raspberry Pi rival Galileo can now run Windows
- Microsoft and HTC are M8s again: New One mobe sports WinPhone
- Worstall on Wednesday Wall Street woes: Oh noes, tech titans aren't using bankers