More accurate than Heisenberg allows? Uncertainty in the presence of a quantum memory
July 27, 2010Quantum cryptography is the safest way to encrypt data. It utilizes the fact that transmitted information can only be measured with a strictly limited degree of precision. Scientists at Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich and ETH Zurich have now discovered how the use of a quantum memory affects this uncertainty.
A quantum particle is hard to grasp, because one cannot determine all its properties precisely at the same time. Measurements of certain parameter pairs such as position and momentum remain inaccurate to a degree given by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This is important for the security of quantum cryptography, where information is transmitted in the form of quantum states such as the polarization of particles of light.
A group of scientists from LMU and the ETH in Zurich, including Professor Matthias Christandl, has now shown that position and momentum can be predicted more precisely than Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle would lead one to expect, if the recipient makes use of a quantum memory that employs ions or atoms. The results show that the magnitude of the uncertainty depends on the degree of correlation ("entanglement") between the quantum memory and the quantum particle. "The result not only enhances our understanding of quantum memories, it also provides us with a method for determining the degree of correlation between two quantum particles", says Christandl. "Moreover, the effect we have observed could yield a means of testing the security of quantum cryptographic systems." (Nature Physics online, July 25, 2010)
Unlike classical computers, quantum computers operate not with bits, but with quantum bits or qubits, quantum mechanical states of particles. The crucial feature of qubits is that they can exist in different states at once, not just 0 or 1, but also as a superposition of 0 and 1. The ability to exploit superposition states is what makes quantum computers potentially so powerful. "The goal of our research is to work out how quantum memories, i.e. memory systems for qubits, might be utilized in the future and how they affect the transmission of quantum bits", explains Christandl, who left LMU Munich in June 2010 to take up a position in the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the ETH in Zurich.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle plays a central role in quantum computing, because it sets a fundamental limit to the accuracy with which a quantum state can be determined. Quantum mechanics also tells us that the measurement of a parameter can itself perturb the state of a particle. If, for example, one were to measure the position of a particle with infinite precision, the particle's momentum would become completely uncertain. Quantum cryptography uses this effect to encrypt data, for instance by entangling two quantum particles in a way that the probability with which the measurement of one particle yields a certain value depends on the state of the other particle. Eavesdropping can thus easily be uncovered, because any measurement will change the state of the particle measured.
The teams at LMU and the ETH Zurich have now shown that the result of a measurement on a quantum particle can be predicted with greater accuracy if information about the particle is available in a quantum memory. Atoms or ions can form the basis for such a quantum memory. The researchers have, for the first time, derived a formula for Heisenberg's Principle, which takes account of the effect of a quantum memory. In the case of so-called entangled particles, whose states are very highly correlated (i.e. to a degree that is greater than that allowed by the laws of classical physics), the uncertainty can disappear. According to Christandl, this can be roughly understood as follows "One might say that the disorder or uncertainty in the state of a particle depends on the information stored in the quantum memory. Imagine having a pile of papers on a table. Often these will appear to be completely disordered -- except to the person who put them there in the first place."
"Our results not only improve our understanding of quantum memories, they also give us a way of measuring entanglement", says Christandl. "The effect could also help us to test the security of quantum cryptographic systems." One can picture the method as a game in which player B transmits a particle to player A. A then performs a measurement on the particle, introducing an uncertainty. A subsequent measurement by B will only yield the value determined by A with an uncertainty given by Heisenberg's Principle. "But if B uses a quantum memory", says Christandl, "he can determine the correct value and win the game."
More information: "The Uncertainty Principle in the Presence of Quantum Memory", M. Berta, M. Christandl, R. Colbeck, J.M. Renes, R. Renner
Nature Physics, 25 July 2010. DOI:10.1038/nphys1734
Provided by ETH Zurich
-
Could some entangled states be useless for quantum cryptography?
Jul 05, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Quantum Mechanical Con Game
May 05, 2008 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Physicist proposes method to teleport energy
Feb 05, 2010 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Quantum cryptography: No Signaling and quantum key distribution
Jul 05, 2005 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Quantum electronics: Two photons and chips
Jan 20, 2006 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (30) |
30
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
The hidden nanoworld of ice crystals: Revealing the dynamic behavior of quasi-liquid layers
Jan 30, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
-
Stock market network reveals investor clustering
Jan 27, 2012 |
3.9 / 5 (23) |
8
-
Of microchemistry and molecules: Electronic microfluidic device synthesizes biocompatible probes
Jan 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
-
Steam Table issues
1 hour ago
-
electrostatic induction in a conductor should be immpossible
5 hours ago
-
Help! Physics Momentum/Impulse problem!
8 hours ago
-
Gauss' law cubes, how to prove
9 hours ago
-
what is significance of torque
11 hours ago
-
Difference between volume displaced fluid and volume of the object
12 hours ago
- More from Physics Forums - General Physics
More news stories
Physics research suggests new pathways for cancer progression
Observing that certain cancer cells may exhibit greater flexibility than normal cells, some scientists believe that this capability promotes rapid tumor growth. Now computer simulations developed by Boston University Biomedical ...
22 hours ago |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
Quantum physicist explains $100K offer for proof scaled-up quantum computing is impossible
(PhysOrg.com) -- MIT researcher Scott Aaronson has certainly riled the physics community with his offer this past Friday, of $100,000 to anyone who can prove that scaled-up quantum computing is impossible. ...
Explained: Sigma
It's a question that arises with virtually every major new finding in science or medicine: What makes a result reliable enough to be taken seriously? The answer has to do with statistical significance -- but ...
Feb 09, 2012 |
5 / 5 (13) |
32
Physicists 'record' magnetic breakthrough
An international team of scientists has demonstrated a revolutionary new way of magnetic recording which will allow information to be processed hundreds of times faster than by current hard drive technology.
Feb 07, 2012 |
4.5 / 5 (39) |
14
|
Diamond light, brighter than the sun
Its the size of five football pitches and generates light 10 billion times brighter than the sun. As the Diamond Light Source celebrates its tenth anniversary this year, Penny Bailey visits one of the ...
Feb 07, 2012 |
4.3 / 5 (7) |
15
|
New error-correcting codes guarantee the fastest possible rate of data transmission
Error-correcting codes are one of the triumphs of the digital age. Theyre a way of encoding information so that it can be transmitted across a communication channel such as an optical fiber o ...
A frank discussion of the power law and linking correlation to causation
(PhysOrg.com) -- Michael Stumpf a mathematics professor at Imperial College in London, and Mason Porter a lecturer at Oxford have teamed together to write and publish a perspective piece in Science regarding the in ...
Mars Science Laboratory computer issue resolved
(PhysOrg.com) -- Engineers have found the root cause of a computer reset that occurred two months ago on NASA's Mars Science Laboratory and have determined how to correct it.
Advanced power-grid model finds low-cost, low-carbon future in West
(PhysOrg.com) -- The least expensive way for the Western U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough to help prevent the worst consequences of global warming is to replace coal with renewable and other ...
Small modular reactor design could be a 'SUPERSTAR'
(PhysOrg.com) -- Though most of today's nuclear reactors are cooled by water, we've long known that there are alternatives; in fact, the world's first nuclear-powered electricity in 1951 came from a reactor ...
Clam fields found at deep, low-temperature Mariana vents
(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists have marveled at the unusual life forms thriving at high temperature hydrothermal vents of the deep ocean.
Jul 27, 2010
Rank: 3.6 / 5 (5)
I suspect the same problem will arise here. Either quantum memory will maintain the uncertainty, or it will be transferred to the result by reading it.
Until someone actually builds a system like this that actually works, call me dubious.
Jul 27, 2010
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (10)
http://en.wikiped...b-tester
Jul 27, 2010
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Jul 27, 2010
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
I never accepted that rule anyway.
Jul 27, 2010
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (11)
Actually the superluminal information is noncausal one - you can be never sure by source of information in the same way, like during listening of waves at the water surface. If you'll use underwater waves, which are spreading faster, you can get the information faster - but because such information arrived from underwater through extra-dimension, you can be never sure by its direction. Under many situations it doesn't bring a problem - when you're sure, there is no other source of signal, you can still enjoy non-causal communication.
The above example with quantum memory is the same situation. Quantum memory enables averaging of signal in certain time-span, you can avoid uncertainty limit, but you cannot be sure by the original source of information at the price.
Jul 27, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (4)
The standard message coding scheme works something like this: A system of 2 particles, each with 2 possible states 0,1, can form 4 total final states. Alice and Bob each have prepared their particles ahead of time to be correlated, but they're in a superposition of states. Alice modifies her particle so that the two are now in one of the 4 final states. All she's done is change the correlation between her particle and Bob's particle. She still has to measure her particle, and tell Bob, via a classical (c or slower) channel what her measurement was, so that Bob can measure his and find out which final state (the final state being the message) Alice had selected. The slowest link in the chain always has to be light speed or slower.
Jul 27, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
My question is what if they pre-agree on a set time to measure. Alice measures at 12:00 exactly, Bob measures at 12:01 exactly. Bob knows that Alice has already measured because they previously synchronised their clocks. So he knows the measurmenet is a result of Alice's measurment. But if Bob is 2 light minutes away from Alice, haven't they communciated FTL?
What am I missing here?
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (4)
When it comes down to it we have to stop saying particle and call it a wave-icle.
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
I'm no physicist so surely I can't be the first to think of it in this way therefore I'm missing something, I just cant figure out what it is! :)
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
"...the new experiment shows that direct communication between the photons is simply impossible".
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
The theory needs more testing for sure, but I don't see anything intrinsically contradictory about being able to quantify uncertainty.
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
simple enough.
Big bang, expanding sphere oscillating and expanding 'outward' thus it's maximal oscillatory 'limits' (in-out- but incapable of being recognized as such as they are all the same 'point'), thus infinite 2-d oscillating stress fields are born. Those intersect and interact with one another, creating our 3-d reality across their interactive torsionally spinning selves. An innie and an outie.
Our 'higher dimension' is merely a quantified artifice that occur ACROSS these torsionally spinning interactives. Inherent Fibonacci, etc, all inclusive in the basics. Everything we know of and speculate on -fits.
Thus infinitely stable spin but a huge release of energy when 'busted apart'. Spooky action at a distance, etc, all of our observed phenomena, both unaccepted and scientifically accepted all occur in a simple easy to understand system that does not really step outside of basic mechanics.
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I don't understand this...
If you are treating each entangled particle as a single bit then the state is unimportant, the change is what matters... if a change occurs it can be interpreted as a bit flip, it doesn't matter what the state was before or after, so long as they are different.
Alice and bob each have one of two entangled particles, Alice changes her particle, when bob detects this change the bit represented by that particle is flipped... that's all.
Unless merely examining Bob's particle causes decoupling, if that is the case then it would only work once, but would still be faster than C communication for the one time it worked.
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
That's because Bob dosn't measure a "change" from, say, spin up or down or visa-versa. All he can do is measure a particle as spin up or spin down at a particular time in his reference frame. That spin at Bob's location may be instantly determined by Alice because of particle entanglement, but Bob has no way of knowing how or when she is going to flip that bit ahead of time except through normal channels at speed c. And if he doesn't wait for Alice to determine the spin state and takes a measurement, then he'll be the one responisble for the spin state at Alice's location.
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Okay, but couldn't you use some type of pre-determined timing scheme to overcome this? Very simply, Alice only changes her particle on odd minutes and whatever his name was only examines his on even minutes?
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
You cartainly can set up a scheme where you regularly witness the results of instantaneous EVENTS. But you can't get any meaningful information out of those events unless you set it all up through "regular channels" in the first place, and then you're back to square one.
In practice, Bob can certainly have an agreement with Alice to look for the particle spin state at a certain time, but he can't know what that state is going to be unless Alice has let him know how she is going to flip those bits ahead of time through "regular channels".
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
The two entangled particles/photons/wave-icles (awesome term) have no measurement applied. Once one side is measured the other side now has a starting point. We cannot control the spin and prevent wave form collapse. Effectively nothing is transmitted, the connection is simply broken.
In order to use this to relay any sort of information you would need to have an initial known state during entanglement. If this is possible, it is outside of our technological competence and well outside our knowledge of physical reality.
Secondly, any form of entanglement break would have to be correlated with the data on the other side, resulting in the actual data transfer occuring at C or below.
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
I'm still not following you because it doesn't matter what the states are... You aren't looking for a particular state, you are looking for a change from the previous known state.
Maybe my understanding of the topic is insufficient, so let me explain better the way I see this working.
- Start with 2 entangled particles at a distance, the state of which are known.
- At any even minute position A can change the state of their particle, thus changing particle B
- At any odd minute position B can examine their particle, knowing the previous state, to determine if a change has occurred
- Whether or not the examination of particle B effects A (I am unsure) is irrelevant, comm. would work either way.
contd.
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
- If examination of particle B changed A then A would detect this change at even time intervals and would know that the message had been read... this can be used as a read receipt mechanism.
- All that you would need for communication to work is to be able to remember the previous state and examine the current state to detect changes in the state at pre-agreed upon time intervals.
Again, I may simply lack the understanding of how entanglement works to see the problem, but would appreciate if you or anyone could explain it. Particularly, does examining the state change it? And if so, does it change it to the examined state or to some unknown (and therefore unknowable) state?
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
As an embedded engineer I have a good deal of experience with binary communication protocols, so I understand that not everyone may understand this.
The 0's and 1's of binary are relative and arbitrary, it doesn't matter which is which when transmitting a message, all you need to be able to do is detect a change... Then, a change in one bit from one time interval to the next can be represented as a binary one and no change in a bit in the same interval can be represented as a binary 0, for example.
The particular spin of the particle is irrelevant, as long as you can tell that the spin has changed from the last examination.
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Am I totally misunderstanding you, or does that help at all?
Jul 28, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jul 29, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Yeah this is what I didn't understand... I thought that once entangled the particles remained entangled and the spin could be observed without effecting the entanglement.
You seem to be saying that the quantum superposition is the entanglement, that when the waveform collapses under observation the particles are no longer entangled, I didn't understand that.
Jul 29, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Jul 31, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
Both Bob and Alice measure one or the other property at random. Then they send each other messages to say which they measured. It has to be after they've both measured to avoid a man-in-the-middle attack. If they measured different properties, they throw that bit away as useless. If they measured the same property, Bob has the complement of what Alice measured and they have one random bit toward a key to be used to decrypt the actual message when Alice sends it (subluminally).
Aug 02, 2010
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (25)
In 1994 Günter Nimtz and Horst Aichmann carried out a tunneling experiment at the laboratories of Hewlett-Packard after which Nimtz stated that the frequency modulated (FM) carrier wave transported the 40th symphony of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 4.7 times faster than light due to the effect of quantum tunneling.
Aug 02, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Provide a link.
Aug 02, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Aug 02, 2010
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (25)
Aug 02, 2010
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Aug 02, 2010
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (24)
Aug 02, 2010
Rank: not rated yet
What's with all the whining? Isn't there a separate forum for tantrums?
Aug 02, 2010
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
1st off, if you're at a different location on a different machine, how could they know it was "you" they were banning. They can't, so we have to suffer the consequences.
2nd, considering your history on this site, their actions have probably very little to do with the censorship of private ideas and one heck of a lot more to do with trying to keep people like you from HIJACKING the forums on the site. You more than any other poster have contibuted to the pain-in-the-ass hoops all now have to jump through because of your:
* forum FLOODING
* MULTI-PAGE posts
* MULTIPLE-IDENTIIES
* VOTING WARS
Yet still you obsessively-compulsively post around all these restrictions.
Aug 02, 2010
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (13)
Aug 02, 2010
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
PHEW - thanks for saying that (finally) SH - I kept seeing responses to VestaR with no original posts. Figured I was losing it, I did, I did.
Aug 03, 2010
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
Growing list of Alizee aliases can be found in my profile.
Aug 03, 2010
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
You simply ignore facts. In particular you ignore the fact that you cheat on the ranking system which is what has so many annoyed with you.
Ethelred
Aug 03, 2010
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
Aug 03, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
I will forget the ranking system when others do.
I have said many times that it SHOULD GO AWAY. As should you as YOU are the worst abuser of the system, bar none. Next worse was the Global Warming deniers who would give ANY post no matter how well thought out and how well supported a one if it so much as hinted that Global Warming just might possibly be real. Even mentioning that Bush had finally figured out reality to a small degree would get you a one.
They and you are the reason my ranking is below four.
Heck YOU alone probably have me down to four.
Mostly for telling the truth about your misbehavior.
Any you have the nerve to claim that YOU are censored via ranking when you engage in that behavior constantly. So much so that I have finally begun a consistent campaign of retaliation.
Ethelred
Aug 03, 2010
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Rules are only for others and not the MultiNamed Crank.
Except it is people like you that forced others to create those rules.
Ethelred
Aug 03, 2010
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
I see it in another thread .. the one on grumpy people. :)