A New Unbreakable Code System


robbieduncan

Moderator emeritus
Jul 24, 2002
24,480
9
London
From what I understood this is not a code system, more a transmission method. It does beg the question what happens if the read end misses a photon? I assume the transmission protocol must have quite a lot of error checking built in...
 

kylos

macrumors 6502a
Nov 8, 2002
947
0
MI
This system would seem to be unstable over relatively long distances, since some slight leakage is expected when transmitting over fiber. This would likely require the signal to be interrupted more frequently to check for errors and to realign the signal.
 

jsw

Moderator emeritus
Mar 16, 2004
22,817
37
Andover, MA
Cool. According to this article, this new single-photon method prevents the man-in-the-middle attack developed for prior quantum-entanglement-based schemes.

Of course, quantum entanglement (in its original, multi-photon form) was at first considered unhackable, so one must wonder how long this new method will be seen as such.
 

Mr. Anderson

Moderator emeritus
Original poster
Nov 1, 2001
22,407
0
VA
jsw said:
Of course, quantum entanglement (in its original, multi-photon form) was at first considered unhackable, so one must wonder how long this new method will be seen as such.
Until someone learns how to just observe the photon without removing it from the stream :D

D
 

Chappers

macrumors 68020
Aug 12, 2003
2,247
1
At home
robbieduncan said:
From what I understood this is not a code system, more a transmission method. It does beg the question what happens if the read end misses a photon? I assume the transmission protocol must have quite a lot of error checking built in...
Don't worry - Microsoft are working on it.
 

4409723

Suspended
Jun 22, 2001
2,222
0
Mr. Anderson said:
Until someone learns how to just observe the photon without removing it from the stream :D

D
Hmm isn't that very hard to do as a result of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? The process of detecting such a tiny mass is going to deflect it to a huge degree, hence alerting to a hacker intercepting the signal.
 

fedora

macrumors member
Jun 30, 2004
68
0
Chappers said:
Don't worry - Microsoft are working on it.
No apple are - OS X Schrödinger's cat, for release on the first desktop quantum computer. :D
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,472
180
visiting from downstream
Wes said:
Hmm isn't that very hard to do as a result of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? The process of detecting such a tiny mass is going to deflect it to a huge degree, hence alerting to a hacker intercepting the signal.
It's IMPOSSIBLE to do, unless Heisenberg was wrong.
 

fedora

macrumors member
Jun 30, 2004
68
0
If anyone want to learn more about quantum computing/physics come and do a search on this forum I post on: www.physicsforums.com this topic and it's link too LQG have been discuss in depth.
 

fedora

macrumors member
Jun 30, 2004
68
0
Wes said:
Or unless we find smaller particles to detect photons with...

What do you mean "smaller" photons have no dimensions? only mass as a product of velocity.
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,472
180
visiting from downstream
fedora said:
What do you mean "smaller" photons have no dimensions? only mass as a product of velocity.
They still have size, though, right? A point particle (dimensionless) with mass would have infinite density (weight per unit volume), and that doesn't make sense.

I think he meant trying to use quarks or even strings to detect and "read" a photon's state without altering it. Of course, if you could do this, the resulting apparatus would be so large and require so much energy to operate that everyone would know what you were up to.
 

admanimal

macrumors 68040
Apr 22, 2005
3,530
2
fedora said:
No apple are - OS X Schrödinger's cat, for release on the first desktop quantum computer. :D
The retail box contains a single dvd that is both blank and contains the final version...you don't know which you get until you open the box.
 

cr2sh

macrumors 68030
May 28, 2002
2,554
1
downtown
God I really hate threads like this. Everyone has to whip out there college physics notes and try to pass judgement.

Aren't there insanely cheaper and simpler "unbreakable" codes?
 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,472
180
visiting from downstream
cr2sh said:
God I really hate threads like this. Everyone has to whip out there college physics notes and try to pass judgement.

Aren't there insanely cheaper and simpler "unbreakable" codes?
Yup. The good ol' one-time pad. Use the cypher once, then throw it away. The people at both ends of the communication have the same pad. Since the cypher is NEVER reused, a pattern can't be established by anyone who's monitoring the communication, and therefore they can never decypher it.
 

admanimal

macrumors 68040
Apr 22, 2005
3,530
2
cr2sh said:
God I really hate threads like this. Everyone has to whip out there college physics notes and try to pass judgement.

Aren't there insanely cheaper and simpler "unbreakable" codes?
Well since we're getting all theoretical here, it's worth pointing out that the varying levels of "unbreakableness" achieved by modern (non-quantum) cryptography are all based on the assumption that P does not equal NP, i.e. that there are certain reasonable things that we would like to compute efficiently, but can't seem to (the prime factorization of an integer being the most relevant). The disturbing thing is that it is unknown whether it is truly impossible to compute these things efficiently or whether we just haven't figured out the trick to it yet. If someone does find the trick, then most modern encryption techniques would fall apart.

So I don't get attacked by any theoreticians hanging out here, I should point out that finding a polynomial algorithm to solve the factoring problem (the NP problem most relevant to encrpytion) does not prove that P=NP, since it is not NP-complete.
 

fedora

macrumors member
Jun 30, 2004
68
0
clayj said:
They still have size, though, right? A point particle (dimensionless) with mass would have infinite density (weight per unit volume), and that doesn't make sense.

I think he meant trying to use quarks or even strings to detect and "read" a photon's state without altering it. Of course, if you could do this, the resulting apparatus would be so large and require so much energy to operate that everyone would know what you were up to.
I know this is a bit off topic,

You are correct, it's correct to think that photons do have "size". I said they did not because the physics gets difficult. A photon has a perfectly well-defined wavelength only when it's in a momentum eigenstate, i.e. when it has a perfectly well-defined momentum (and energy). This never happens. A photon is always in a superposition of momentum eigenstates:



The only quantity that we might want to call the "size" of the photon is the width of the Fourier transform of the momentum-space wave function, f, i.e. the uncertainty in the photon's position. This uncertainty could be anything between zero and infinity. Since it can be arbitrarily close to zero, it makes sense to call the photon a "point particle".

However, if we assume that the uncertainty in momentum is proportional to the magnitude of the momentum (which is the only thing we can assume if we know nothing about the state), the uncertainty in position is proportional to Planck's constant divided by p (the magnitude of the momentum). Since p is inversely proportional to the wavelength, the uncertainty in position is proportional to the wavelength.

So it makes sense to think of the wavelength as the "size" of the photon (or at least as something proportional to it). This may seem strange, but it is at least consistent with e.g. the fact that microwaves (with wavelengths of order 1 cm) won't go through a metal net with millimeter-sized holes (like the net that covers the window of your microwave oven), but they will go through a net with much larger holes.

So photons do have "size" but it is not size as in a lump.
 

yellow

Moderator emeritus
Oct 21, 2003
15,925
1
Portland, OR
Australian scientists believe they have developed an unbreakable information code to stop hackers, using a diamond, a kitchen microwave oven and an optical fiber.
I wonder what they would have found if they'd added a bag of microwave popcorn to the mix.
 

robbieduncan

Moderator emeritus
Jul 24, 2002
24,480
9
London
FearFactor47 said:
Anyone in here read Dan Brown's 'Digital Fortress'. It's about a code that cannot be broken - I'm in the middle of reading it!
Yes I've read and. And I don't think I'll ever forgive Dan Brown for writing such a terrible book. Probably the worst thing I've read in the last 2 years :mad:
 

Nickygoat

macrumors 6502a
Dec 11, 2004
992
0
London
clayj said:
Yup. The good ol' one-time pad. Use the cypher once, then throw it away. The people at both ends of the communication have the same pad. Since the cypher is NEVER reused, a pattern can't be established by anyone who's monitoring the communication, and therefore they can never decypher it.
They are unbreakable on a depth of one (used only once) but are unsuitable for mass market systems. They are also vulnerable to social engineering ie. capturing one of the one time pads.
 

cr2sh

macrumors 68030
May 28, 2002
2,554
1
downtown
clayj said:
Yup. The good ol' one-time pad. Use the cypher once, then throw it away. The people at both ends of the communication have the same pad. Since the cypher is NEVER reused, a pattern can't be established by anyone who's monitoring the communication, and therefore they can never decypher it.
Exactly the system I was thinking of... the system that killed the Rosenbergs.

 

clayj

macrumors 604
Jan 14, 2005
7,472
180
visiting from downstream
Nickygoat said:
They are unbreakable on a depth of one (used only once) but are unsuitable for mass market systems. They are also vulnerable to social engineering ie. capturing one of the one time pads.
Well, that's true for ANY system. You have to keep both ends of the communication secure.

Tom Clancy described a (fictitious) one-time pad system called Mercury in one of his novels... rather than a physical pad of paper, the "pad" existed on a CD-ROM and was generated using atmospheric radio noise, so that it was truly random. (If you let a person come up with the cypher, they'll unknowingly apply a pattern to it given enough time.) Two copies of the CD were made... one for the base, and one for the remote location. All transmissions were encrypted/decrypted using the contents of the CD, which was then destroyed once all of the bytes on it were used.

Using a dual-layer DVD (8.5 GB of random bytes) at both ends, you could encrypt/decrypt a HELL of a lot of e-mail...