Quantum Entangled Internet

Try holding your breath. Entanglement is not useful for transporting information.

>>47620772
Is it b/c of the random thing? Why are people even researching this then?

>>47620787
Because that's what physicist's literally get paid to do

>>47620787
You have to send the entangled particles first for you to check their "data". Sending electrons over wire is faster than sending a particle right?

>>47620836
you dont send it, you measure it. And you cannot control what it's going to be. It'd be like a bit that you can't control whether it's going to be a zero or a one.

>>47620750
I think it's approproate that no one can dicide if d-wave's microchip is actually a quantum computer. It appears to exist in a state of flux depending on the observer. To some scientists, its a quantum computer, to other scientists, it's not.

>>47620832
right. more rhetorical, but still, right.

>>47620836
I may be missing a large portion of the process, I'm reading up on it now. If you can humor me a little more. Once it's sent and setup, can't you just send a spin one way, causing both to spin, and then stop it on the other side instantly, stopping both, and have the receiver tally a mark saying that the information was sent. Kind of like morse code?

>>47620787
Entaglement just means that when you create 2 particles out of an particle with value 0, you get one with 1 and one with -1. But you don't know which one. You can put both particles on other plantes, but as soon as you check the value on one, you also know the value of the other one. No information has been transported.
Also, in reality it's not value but something like spin or mass.

>>47620883
decide...

>>47620893
if you measure it, it changes the spin, but does that mean at least you knew that it was spinning (or had extra energy position?)

>>47620882
>Yeah but if you measure two entangled particles side by side that wouldn't help anything. You would have to measure them at a distance meaning sending the particle. There is no magical transport data across space. The "data" is the unmeasured value.

>>47620890
I don't think it works like that. it's like taking a dollar and putting it in a machine that rips it in half and packages both halves without showing which is which. You send the package somewhere and each package would contain different halves but you wouldn't know which half until you checked.

I'm probably an idiot but whatever

>>47620975
analogy is a sign of understanding. I didn't understand the analogy, but it definitely shows you have a concept. You smart bro, I just don't have the rules of the game yet to verify that you also know the rules to this game.

>>47620750
Entanglement is pretty much useful only for creating encryption keys.

File: images__5_.jpg (8KB, 270x187px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 270x187px

>>47620883
Ayyy

>>47620975
>Yeah but if you measure two entangled particles side by side that wouldn't help anything. You would have to measure them at a distance meaning sending the particle.
Having the particles far apart wouldn't help with anything either, because there is simply no way to make communication between entangled particles. You cannot control what state either particle will be in because the state is randomly decided whenever you look to see what it is.


Do you mean if you could somehow watch the particle's state constantly, rather than measure it once?

here is a popular explanation of entanglement
https://youtu.be/UHPVgAMxeuI?t=28m1s

btw you probably would get more accurate answers if you asked /sci/, but they would also probably ridicule you

>>47621214
No, I believe we are on the same side of this. I was just trying to relate the idea to networking in the most plausible way which still doesn't work considering that even though you are sending a form of "data" it isn't usable in the way OP thinks.

>>47621214
BTW there is a timestamp on that youtube link, in case you have a 4chan script that is obscuring the link

>>47620787
The whole point of a quantum internet is the security. The idea is to make the data travel in such a way that intercepting it mid-flight will change or self destruct it, making it the ultimate in high-security transmission. It will be literally impossible to look at it undetected, because the very act of intercepting it modifies it in some way.

>>47620975
Your analogy is correct, but only if both pieces of the note have the serial number.

Aren't quantum computers only supposed to be good at certain tasks? How is encryption going to work when huge numbers can be factored in nanoseconds?

>>47621395
>Isn't this solved with direct fiber connections?

>>47621408
Understandable, I thought it was implied but I never would have thought about the possibility of interception. You wouldn't know if they matched without comparing them though, correct?

>>47621425
I believe there is already a quantom decryption algorithm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

>>47621425
Exactly

>>47621505
Direct, overseas, without a single gateway between? Yeah, good luck.
You're right though, it'd require confirmation on both sides that they're entangled; but it doesn't really matter as entangled particles can convey no information.

>>47620750
Never

>>47620930
SPIN DOES NOT MEAN IT'S FUCKING SPINNING
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

>>47621395
ugh that sounds awesome

>>47621505
Shor's algorithm is used for finding prime factors, not decrypting data.

>>47620750
you can't transfer information with entanglement.

>>47621570

I thought it was the...fuck I forgot what's it's called

Sein of enchsufirjiksm

Or something. Fuck. Do you know what I'm talking about? Different guy, btw. But I just read up on something about it

facepalm the thread