As with all fundamental research: we don't know yet. Let's not be judgemental beforehand.
* You need a direct connection with a limit in length. This means effectively you can't have wifi, mobile internet or anything like that. You also probably can't use it to have a connection between the US and Europe. Calling that a "quantum internet" is... only possible if you have no idea what the term "internet" means.
* You need an existing authenticated channel or be vulnerable to man in the middle attacks. The quantum key distribution schemes always assume this already exists, but never care to explain where they got it from.
Isn't this theoretically unavoidable for all forms of encryption? You need some way of distinguishing your intended communication partner, because the best that any protocol could do is establish a secure link with whoever is on the other end of the line.
In a real world implementation, you are using this as a key stream, of which interceptions can be detected by certain loss characteristics.
Perhaps we could find a way to transport an entangled photon down some channel?
Think more like web security certificates...
Today it could be block chain, yesterday it was telemedicine, etc
And that does not take into account fiber repeaters or microwave links
Not really for communication, and I suspect that if you want it to scale up to 1000km, it’s going to strongly resemble the vacuum chamber I mentioned.
That's because we allow them to trade at such rates and compete on speed.
A mere few decades to half a century ago we have 1/10 to 1/1000 the speed, and trading was going on just fine...
I'd opt for a "turn based" trading system (with a small, but not tiny turn window), to eliminate any transmission speedup advantage from different traders.
If it does happen and it gets named The Quanternet, I want some credit by the way. Y'all heard it here first.
Though I expect changes like this are probably more broadly applicable.
Your peer will read the inverse value that you read, but that alone does not make any information go through the channel.
It doesn't happen faster than the speed of light since it still involves transferring 2 regular bits. And it's not really teleportation, unless I "teleport" an image to you by sending emailing it to you. The main difference with sending regular bits is that you inherently destroy your original quantum bit before you "teleport" it, which is presumably where the name comes from. Since copying quantum bits is impossible (the "no-clone theorem"), you can't work around that destruction either.
nobody can mess with the entangled bits, or they lose entanglement, and the message becomes random.
i dunno, it seems like if you had a bunch of them you could make a secure channel.
Many quantum things have classical analogues. For example, there is classical no cloning  and classical delayed erasure , though people will debate if these classical versions have really captured the "essence" of the quantum things.
I don't think anybody solved man in the middle attacks against it yet. If the attacker takes hold of both the entangled channel and the classical channel, he can impersonate both parties and keep the conversation going.
And you can't store those pairs. All those articles are about people that made them survive long enough for transmission. So you can't distribute them in person.
Yes, non-quantum encryption has not been proven secure. That beats a known insecure systems at any time. You are also underestimating the cost of quantum crypto - it will only work on direct fiber, it can never be routed.
Also, the Chinese have already demonstrated quantum channels over satellites - it doesn’t need fiber. The satellites are certainly acting as routers too.
None of those is perfect, but one is better than the other.
If I understand correctly what is written here, observingicle causes it to increase its, and its peers, state. Wouldn't this let you to decide afterwards if you wanted to again observe it and invert the state if you wanted? Or does observing break entanglement / an inverted particle doesn't get inverted back after another observation?
About the best application I’ve read so far is using entanglement as a signal amplifier (my over simplification).
Blame whomever came up with the term "quantum teleportation" for what should probably more correctly be called "quantum transmission."
This article is talking about building an internet, but I'm not even aware of a reliably functioning peer-to-peer network, which is surely a needed first step?
Furthermore, how does this make communication more secure? Are you not still sending data from node to node?
In addition the speed of light is on the order of 30% slower traveling through a fiber optic cable than through a vacuum. This probably will be where the biggest gain in latency will be.
I guess maybe we could someday find an exception to causality, but it would be a way bigger deal than any other discovery we've made. It would be a back to square one situation.
As they say, you can have FTL, relativity, or causality--pick two. We've really nailed down relativity and causality. It's not looking great for FTL. Trust me, it breaks my heart every time I think about it. But that's the way it is sometimes.
Half of QM (or its interpretations) is also "logically inconsistent", though.
>Causes happen before effects, not ever the other way around.
That's from our own perspective though. In certain theories of the universe (even ones consistent with relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric) time is not the one way stream we conceive it to be.
Godel's metric have nothing to do with reality if you actually read about it's properties. For example, the universe described by it would have no reshift for distant objects.
Please, check your facts. Otherwise you sound just like an uneducated new-ager looking for "truth".
Advice: don't drive a car in Amsterdam! :)