EPR Crypto-System: Bennet, Brassard, & Ekert

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnBarchak
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Epr
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) effect and its implications for quantum cryptography, particularly as presented in the article "Quantum Cryptography" by Bennet, Brassard, and Ekert. Participants explore the nature of quantum entanglement, the concept of superposition, and the feasibility of using these principles in practical cryptographic systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe the EPR effect as involving two photons emitted in opposite directions, with their polarizations being correlated upon measurement, as explained in the original article.
  • One participant argues that the EPR setup operates similarly under both quantum mechanics and classical reality, questioning the foundational assumptions of the cryptosystem.
  • Another participant highlights a contradiction in the claims about the cryptosystem being impossible under QM rules while also stating that quantum mechanics accounts for the EPR effect straightforwardly.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of "spooky action at a distance," with some asserting that it cannot be used to send signals, while others suggest it could be utilized in specific contexts like one-time pads or synchronization.
  • There is a contention regarding the understanding of quantum mechanics, with one participant asserting that communication via quantum entanglement always requires a classical channel, while another challenges the validity of this claim.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views on the interpretation of the EPR effect, the feasibility of using quantum entanglement for communication, and the implications of "spooky action at a distance." The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on these points.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the assumptions underlying the EPR effect and its application in cryptography, particularly regarding the independence of polarization from measurement and the practical challenges of implementing EPR-based systems.

JohnBarchak
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
In the Oct 1992 issue of Scientific American, the article "Quantum
Cryptography", by Charles Bennet, Gilles Brassard and Artur Ekert
mainlines experimental work on a very powerful cryptosystem that has
been devised that is essentially impossible under QM rules:

"The EPR effect occurs when a spherically symmetric atom emits two photons in opposite directions toward two observers, Alice and Bob. The two photons are produced in an initial state of undefined polarization. But because of the symmetry of the initial state, the polarizations of the photons, when measured, must have opposite values, provided that the measurements are of the same type. For example, if Alice and Bob both measure rectilinear polarizations, they are each equally likely to record either a 0 (horizontal polarization) or a 1 (vertical), but if Alice obtains a 0, Bob will certainly obtain a 1, and vice versa.

The unusual and important aspect of the EPR effect is that the polarization of both photons is determined as soon as, but not before, one of the photons is measured. This happens no matter how far apart the photons may be at the time. This "classical" explanation of the EPR effect is somewhat counterintuitive, and indeed all classical explanations of the EPR effect involve some implausible element, such as instantaneous action at a distance. Yet the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics accounts for the EPR effect in a straightforward manner, and experiments have amply confirmed the existence of the phenomenon."

The crypto-system of Bennet, Brassard and Ekert is now the basis of several commercial products, so the EPR experiment is being performed on a daily basis.

All the best
John B.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
JohnBarchak said:
In the Oct 1992 issue of Scientific American, the article "Quantum
Cryptography", by Charles Bennet, Gilles Brassard and Artur Ekert
mainlines experimental work on a very powerful cryptosystem that has
been devised that is essentially impossible under QM rules:

"The EPR effect occurs when a spherically symmetric atom emits two photons in opposite directions toward two observers, Alice and Bob. The two photons are produced in an initial state of undefined polarization. But because of the symmetry of the initial state, the polarizations of the photons, when measured, must have opposite values, provided that the measurements are of the same type. For example, if Alice and Bob both measure rectilinear polarizations, they are each equally likely to record either a 0 (horizontal polarization) or a 1 (vertical), but if Alice obtains a 0, Bob will certainly obtain a 1, and vice versa.

The unusual and important aspect of the EPR effect is that the polarization of both photons is determined as soon as, but not before, one of the photons is measured. This happens no matter how far apart the photons may be at the time. This "classical" explanation of the EPR effect is somewhat counterintuitive, and indeed all classical explanations of the EPR effect involve some implausible element, such as instantaneous action at a distance. Yet the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics accounts for the EPR effect in a straightforward manner, and experiments have amply confirmed the existence of the phenomenon."

The crypto-system of Bennet, Brassard and Ekert is now the basis of several commercial products, so the EPR experiment is being performed on a daily basis.

All the best
John B.

I believe you have read all of this backwards - which is very easy to do. The EPR setup described above is expected to operate the same way regardless of whether you are talking QM or classical reality.

The situation changes when you postulate that the polarization exists independently of the measurement. I do not believe any crypto-system uses this assumption as its cornerstone. In fact, I doubt you will see many working EPR type setups used for sending coded messages, much less on a daily basis. :smile: They tend to be expensive and difficult to operate.
 
Last edited:
Note the contradiction:

JohnBarchak said:
work on a very powerful cryptosystem that has
been devised that is essentially impossible under QM rules: ...


JohnBarchak said:
Yet the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics accounts for the EPR effect in a straightforward manner, and experiments have amply confirmed the existence of the phenomenon.

BTW, the second statement is the correct one.

cheers,
Patrick.
 
Impossible Under QM Rules

The QM hypothesis is that both photons are in a state of superposition until one is measured. Once one is measured, then the other reacts and becomes the opposite polarization. This requires faster than light "spooky action at a distance." If "spooky action at a distance" was possible, then engineers would be able to use it to send signals. I am an electrical engineer and I am here to tell you that we cannot send signals using "spooky action at a distance."

All the best
John B.
 
JohnBarchak said:
The QM hypothesis is that both photons are in a state of superposition until one is measured. Once one is measured, then the other reacts and becomes the opposite polarization. This requires faster than light "spooky action at a distance." If "spooky action at a distance" was possible, then engineers would be able to use it to send signals. I am an electrical engineer and I am here to tell you that we cannot send signals using "spooky action at a distance."

That is incorrect. Spooky action at a distance cannot be used to send information. Entangled pairs could concievably be used as a sort of one-time-pad or for other kinds of synchronization.
Let's say we start with Abe and Betty who want to use entangled pairs to communicate, and let's also say that they have an infinite supply of these pairs.
So, Abe wants to send a signal to Betty, so he somehow manipulates his electron (or whatever) to get it to have spooky action at a distance with Betty's electron. Regarldess of what Abe did, Betty cannot, just by measuring her electron, identify whether Abe has manipulated his electron.
 
JohnBarchak said:
I am an electrical engineer and I am here to tell you that we cannot send signals using "spooky action at a distance."
I'm also an electrical engineer, and I am here to tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about. Communication by quantum entanglement will ALWAYS require some form of additional classical channel. If you really understood quantum mechanics, you'd not make these kinds of mistakes. You're still stuck on the "paradox" of EPR, which makes you about a century late to the party.

I am also here to kindly encourage you to either refrain from posting on subjects with which you are not well-acquainted, or to find yourself greener pastures which will tolerate the sort nonsense posts you've made here. It won't be tolerated much longer here.

- Warren
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 225 ·
8
Replies
225
Views
15K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 143 ·
5
Replies
143
Views
22K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K