Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their nanotechnology
retraction).
Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/20/0358215
Posted by: samzenpus, on 2005-01-20 06:35:00
from the just-try-and-break-it dept.
[1]prostoalex writes Scientific American claims that [2]advances
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
PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Scientific American on Quantum Encryption
Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their
nanotechnology
retraction).
Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/20/0358215
Posted by: samzenpus, on 2005-01-20 06:35:00
from
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
, January 20, 2005 6:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Scientific American on Quantum Encryption
Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their
nanotechnology
retraction).
Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/20/0358215
Posted by: samzenpus, on 2005
PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Scientific American on Quantum Encryption
Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their
nanotechnology
retraction).
Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/20/0358215
Posted by: samzenpus, on 2005-01-20 06:35:00
from
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
, January 20, 2005 6:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Scientific American on Quantum Encryption
Scientific American has little clue, as usual (see their
nanotechnology
retraction).
Link: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/20/0358215
Posted by: samzenpus, on 2005
13 matches
Mail list logo
