Chris Fuchs Comments on Quantum Crypto

[JohnBarchak]

Chris Fuchs, the leading expert on the foundation of quantum mechanics, comments on the veil of secrecy descending on quantum
crypto in a 2002 PC Magazine article. Here is a quote from the
article:

"Drawing on the seemingly magical principles of quantum mechanics—the
physics associated with very small particles—it allows two people to
exchange encryption keys over a public network, use those keys to
encode their correspondence, and know that the correspondence is
completely secure."

I am sure that Chris Fuchs does not believe that quantum crypto
is "magic". It is not magic and it is deterministic. The article
can be found at:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2C1759%2C440474%2C00.asp

All the best
John B.

 

[DrChinese]

John,

I wonder if I might make a suggestion...

You have started 3 threads on quantum crypto systems in the past day. All 3 seem to have the same basic bent. Perhaps you might consider placing additional commentary or questions about this in the same thread to make it easier for those of us who might want to follow or comment.

As to Chris Fuchs being "the leading expert on the foundation of quantum mechanics"... that one is going to have a few people rolling on the floor for a long time! (Probably Chris himself most of all.) And PC Mag? You are kidding, right?

If you have a point to make, you don't really need to quote someone else. Just say your point. In this case, Fuch's comments have nothing to do with quantum mechanics and certainly do not reflect any schism within the field.

You can encrypt information in the world QM occupies.

Edited to say: er, make that 4 threads now on the same subject.

 

[JohnBarchak]

Did SciAm Ask for My Opinion or Your Opinion?

Did SciAm ask for my opinion or your opinion? I can answer for me (No). As far as PC Mag, it was the only mag (that I know of) that reported on the blackout for quantum crypto.

All the best
John B

 

[DrChinese]

Did SciAm ask for my opinion or your opinion? I can answer for me (No). As far as PC Mag, it was the only mag (that I know of) that reported on the blackout for quantum crypto.

All the best
John B

What are YOUR views? Chris is welcome to join this discussion any time.

As to Scientific American, it is generally not quoted here as being an authoritative source. However, it is sometimes referenced to describe basic concepts in science in terms that can be more readily understood. In this case, however, its meaning has been completely misconstrued. Chris Fuchs (I had never heard of him before) is certainly not considered to be a leading expert on the interpretation of QM, although his credentials are not something I care to debate as it is completely irrelevant.

QM is subjective because of the nature of measurement, usually embodied in the form of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). The counter view regarding objective reality is often referred to as Local Realism (LR). There is an ongoing discussion of this here in several threads. In one of them, Local Reality After Bell I and others represent the QM side and Caroline Thompson represents the LR side. Come on over and join us, the water is fine and I think the topic is relevant to your comments!

Edited to say: Oops, I now see you have already commented over there...sorry then. I still think you will benefit by focusing your clearly related ideas into a single thread.