I've actually seen these devices in operation. The thing
that impressed me most was that the path need not be a
single fiber from end to end - you can maintain quantum
state across a switchable fiber junction. This means
you are no longer limited to a single pair of boxes talking to
each other.
On 2005-01-20T12:16:34+0100, Eugen Leitl wrote:
Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their nanotechnology
retraction).
How could they possibly get clue? Scientists don't want to write
pop-sci articles for a living. It's impossible to condense most current
research down to
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:47:38AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
I've actually seen these devices in operation. The thing
that impressed me most was that the path need not be a
single fiber from end to end - you can maintain quantum
state across a switchable fiber junction. This means
Very
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:47:38AM -0500, Trei, Peter wrote:
I've actually seen these devices in operation. The thing
that impressed me most was that the path need not be a
single fiber from end to end - you can maintain quantum
state across a switchable fiber
to write intelligently on
quantum entanglement, EPR and Aharnov-Bohm, and it's been done by Sci-Am,
Penrose, Kaku and plenty of others.
-TD
From: Justin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Scientific American on Quantum Encryption
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:23:35 +
On 2005-01-20T12
of integration and how well current coding schemes work, I'd guess
this will remain a niche unless there's a major breakthrough in factoring.
-TD
From: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Scientific American on Quantum
