Re: Quantum Cryptography can not work

<extrasense@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1172469135.123093.206730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 26, 12:42 am, "Joseph Ashwood" <ashw...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
<extrase...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
why not suspend the reason altogether, why to still hold off in
routing? :)

The no clone theorem.

"The no clone theorem" is an erroneous claim.

I may have called it something other than the recognised term, but to repeat
myself, unless you can present credentials on the level of an Einstein or a
Feynman I'm going to side with the physicists.

You have made a direct claim that you are a theoretical physicist. Can you
support that claim in any way?



My entire previous post so you don't have to look it up:
<extrasense@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1172463635.201140.319390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Feb 25, 6:38 pm, "Joseph Ashwood" <ashw...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm certainly not a fan of Quantum Cryptography, but I am convinced it
works
in certain circumstances.
<azeltsm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1172401726.784545.240830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Some assume photon entanglement, which is an umpossibility. There is
no such thing as entanglement, period.

By adding energy to the system the total energy level of the system will
clearly rise, resulting in an increase in the number of photons, but more
importantly none of the photons will retain the original quantum state,
especially not the entanglement.
I think you are misunderstanding the arguments and/or physics involved.

Did you miss my point that 'entanglement' is BS?

No I didn't, in fact you clipped where I rebutted it, to quote myself:
Since a quick google search for "photon entanglement" results in a number
of
hits in notable publications (e.g. Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040311/040311-1.html) I have to side
with
the professional physicists that are staking their reputation on this.

So the physics of such entanglement exists, all we have from you is an
assertion that it doesn't. Unless you can whip out some major physics
credentials, something along the lines of an Einstein, or a Feynman, both of
which were instrumental in the modern entanglement understanding, then your
claim has no credibility behind it. I have quoted a source saying that it
exists, all you have done is stamp your foot.

Neither Quiantum Computing nor Quantum Entanglement are possible.

And yet, we have solid demonstrations from many different sources that show
them actually happening. So either this universe has quantum physics, or
somehow these people are channeling an alternate universe into our own for
the period of the experiment. One of these is far more likely.

I am telling you this as a theoretical physicist.

Then show your credentials, a quick google on your email address says that
you have posted such famous works as "NASA is brain dead. We must somehow
work around it." ( March 27th 05, 08:44 PM Posted to
sci.astro,alt.sci.planetary,sci.geo.meteorology,sci.physics ). Or perhaps
more interesting your self-conversation at
http://groups.google.com/group/freescience/browse_thread/thread/2a012552b407d789?hl=en ,
I checked the papers aren't available any more. Actually the entire page is
entirely too priceless, so have a look
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=extrasense@xxxxxxxxxxx&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 .

For single hop connections it is a wonderful solution,
for multiple hop connections it is entirely infeasible.

Dear Joseph, it is a WONDERful solution - if one believes in tooth
Fair.

Is that a fair for dentists? I have met the tooth fairy though, he lives in
the South of Market area of San Francisco (it's Sunday I can post bad puns).

And if you are really ready to suspend your disbelieve on 'single
hops',
why not suspend the reason altogether, why to still hold off in
routing? :)

The no clone theorem.
Joe



.