On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Anonymous wrote:
> As a (fellow) trained physicst, do you actually believe that
> quantum-encrypted signals are truly secure as a byproduct of basic
> physical law, or do even YOU believe that QM is merely a "useful
> calculational tool",
No 'label' is ever the thing it labels. QM as instantiated in the math is
nothing more than a useful calculation tool, it is not the system we are
interested in.
> so that (by inference), Quantum-encrypted signals
> may one day be interceptable without either Bob nor Alice knowing that a
> third party is listening?
You can do that now provided it's involving entangled photons. It's called
a BEC and you stop the photon and smear that baby over a whole bunch of
atoms. Measure it's state and then send it on its way without changing its
state. Nobody has tried it with entangled photons to date but I'll wager
that when one is stopped and measured the other one doesn't know a thing
about it.
--
____________________________________________________________________
We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
are going to spend the rest of our lives.
Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------
