back to article Belling that cat: Oz boffins pass entanglement test

Entanglement is easy to generate, but if you want to prove you have entanglement - and that's one of the many holy grails of quantum computing - you have to pass what's called "Bell's inequality test". Doing it in silicon is even better, and that combination has the corks popping at the University of New South Wales. Their …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    I'd hate to be the one...

    ... on tech support having to find that atom if it falls out of the socket!

    I'm the one with the electron microscope and penning trap in the pocket.

    1. TheOtherHobbes

      Re: I'd hate to be the one...

      It won't fall out - it's entangled.

      1. TeeCee Gold badge
        Alert

        Re: I'd hate to be the one...

        Yes, but IT types tend toward the autistic and just can't resist disentangling things.

    2. Matthew Smith

      Re: I'd hate to be the one...

      Not to worry, you automatically have a spare.

      1. TeeCee Gold badge
        Coat

        Re: I'd hate to be the one...

        The trouble there is that if you know what the spare looks like and where you left it, it won't be there when you go to look for it.

        This isn't a quantum effect, it's just what happens to everything you've put away when you really need it urgently.

  2. Pascal Monett Silver badge
    Boffin

    So we're one step closer

    One step closer to the NSA's wet dream of an insta-decryptor for all conventional encyption.

    Forget 4096 normal bits, we're going to need 1024 qbit encryption. Stat !

    1. werdsmith Silver badge

      Re: So we're one step closer

      Maybe the NSA have already got one?

      They won't tell anyone if they have.

      1. Electron Shepherd
        Black Helicopters

        Re: So we're one step closer

        Personally, I think it would be naïve not to assume that they have every SSL certificate issued by every US-based certificate authority. Why go to the bother of trying to find weaknesses in encryption algorithms when one NSL gets you all the keys anyway?

        Yes, there's much more to encrypted communication than SSL. But someone who thinks that a gold padlock at the end of the address bar protects them from Five-Eyes is living in a fantasy world.

        1. codebeard

          Re: So we're one step closer

          > Personally, I think it would be naïve not to assume that they have every SSL certificate issued by every US-based certificate authority.

          SSL certificates don't contain private keys. It doesn't matter if the government has all the certificates (which are publicly available anyhow). If you are doing it properly, the CA never learns your private key. You send the CA a certificate signing request which contains your public key, and they give you your signature. The private key never leaves the safety (hopefully) of your server.

      2. Primus Secundus Tertius

        Re: So we're one step closer

        @werdsmith

        They tell all(*) their mates, using quantum-encrypted links.

        * Or some of them. How many mates do they have, one wonders.

      3. Baskitcaise

        Re: So we're one step closer

        Maybe the NSA have already got one?

        Maybe they are a bit uncertain that they have got one?

    2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: So we're one step closer

      One step closer to the NSA's wet dream of an insta-decryptor for all conventional encyption.

      No, we aren't, because no quantum computer, of whatever size and (possible) speed, gives you instantaneous decryption for any symmetric or asymmetric algorithm, much less "for all conventional encryption".

      QC is not a magical fairyland where everything is possible.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Help..

    Mind=Blown

    That is all...

  4. Electron Shepherd
    Coat

    "Two-cubit operations"

    Now there's something to keep at arms-length...

    1. frank ly
      Happy

      Re: "Two-cubit operations"

      I couldn't fathom that out.

      1. Martin Budden Bronze badge

        Re: "Two-cubit operations"

        I'd like to play this game with you but I'm not in the same league.

    2. HieronymusBloggs

      Re: "Two-cubit operations"

      Who's footing the bill?

      1. User McUser

        Re: "Two-cubit operations"

        Good thing puns are too cheap to meter - I've been doing this furlong time.

        1. Swarthy

          Re: "Two-cubit operations"

          This is a miled case; when you chain the puns together, there'll be ell to pay.

          1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

            Re: "Two-cubit operations"

            I'll perch on the fence over this one.

            1. PNGuinn
              Coat

              Re: "Two-cubit operations"

              Don't want to appear 'olier than thou, but shouldn't we stick to approved Reg units?

              Thanks Rod - it's the one at the end chained to the pole.

    3. Mephistro Silver badge
      Coffee/keyboard

      Re: "Two-cubit operations"

      I find your comment really humerous.

      1. Swarthy
        Thumb Up

        Re: "Two-cubit operations"

        I find your comment really humerous.
        Nice ulnar-nitive take on the pun run! A radial take like that is creative, no bones about it.

    4. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

      Re: "Two-cubit operations"

      They'll have to keep it in the barn. It might even spill out into the yard.

  5. Martin Budden Bronze badge
    Meh

    96% is high-fidelity?

    Thank goodness the bits in my hard-drive are more reliable than that.

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: 96% is high-fidelity?

      Yet your data storage / transmission systems don't have a fidelity of 100%... hence checksums, error correction and other techniques.

  6. bep

    Entanglement?

    What a pity he entangled 'got' and 'ten'. Hats off otherwise.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020