with a satellite as a starting point…
(…that will conduct quantum experiments in space)
The emergence of increasingly extreme innovative technological applications has long become a tedious cliché in the electronic media covering the relevant topics. To such an extent that whatever such a news item claims as an achievement seems fantastic yet familiar. On August 16th, in a number of electronic media outlets, both specialized in physics and general news sites, the following news appeared with minor variations but everywhere with heavy headlines1:
China Launches First-ever Quantum Communication Satellite
China successfully launched the world’s first quantum satellite from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the northwestern Gobi Desert at 01:40 on Tuesday.
Within a cloud of dense smoke, the Quantum Experiments at Space Scale (QUESS) satellite roared into the dark sky atop a Long March-2D rocket.
The 600-kilogram-or-so satellite will complete one orbit around Earth every 90 minutes after entering a sun-synchronous orbit at an altitude of 500 kilometers.
Its nickname is Micius, after a Chinese philosopher and scientist credited with conducting the first optical experiments in human history.
During its two-year mission, QUESS is designed to establish hack-proof quantum communications by transmitting keys that cannot be “broken” from space to the ground, and to provide insights into the strangest phenomenon in quantum physics – quantum entanglement.
Quantum communication demonstrates ultra-high security because a quantum photon cannot be split or copied. Therefore, it is impossible to intercept, block, or “crack” the information transmitted through it.
With the help of the new satellite, scientists will be able to test quantum key distribution between the satellite and ground stations, and conduct secure quantum communications between Beijing and Urumqi in Xinjiang province.
QUESS, as designed, will also emit entangled photons to two ground stations 1,200 kilometers apart, to test quantum entanglement over greater distances, as well as test quantum teleportation between the satellite and a station in Ali, Tibet.
“The launch of this satellite marks a transition in China’s role – from follower of developments in classical information technology to one of the leaders driving future achievements in these technologies,” said Pan Jianwei, chief scientist of the QUESS project, at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
Scientists now anticipate that quantum communications will fundamentally change human development over the next two or three decades, as there are enormous prospects for applying this new generation of communications in fields such as defense, military, and economy.
Quantum entanglement, quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation: not only can we not assume how the above work in the first place, but even identifying the technologies as quantum causes bewilderment, let alone the concept of “entanglement” or “teleportation”.
Before the fans of the TV series Star Trek go crazy with joy (about teleportation), which of course here does not concern some small or large objects but data (information…), the experimental telecommunications satellite QUESS will have to deal with some serious non-quantum technical issues. According to statements by the heads of the QUESS project:
In quantum communications, an accurate emission of photons between the “server” and the “receiver” is never easy to achieve, as the satellite’s optical axis must point exactly towards the telescopes at the ground stations.
… It requires an alignment system that is 10 times more accurate than that of a typical satellite, and the ground detector can only capture one in a million of the entangled photons that are fired…
… What makes it even more difficult is that, at the speed of eight kilometers per second at which the satellite flies over Earth, it will be detectable by the ground station for just a few minutes.
… It would be like dropping a coin from an airplane at 100,000 meters above the sea surface, precisely into the gap of a button.
As for addressing the above mechanical-optical technical problems, we can be confident that the old good laws of physics, with the help of mathematics and modern computational systems, will be able to “synchronize” the satellite with the ground stations at some point within the next two years; and thus the photons will be able to be radiated accurately. But are we equally justified in being confident about the quantum phenomena that will be tested and studied? From one perspective, the mere fact that the satellite will perform “only” some experiments means that they might fail. On the other hand, if what quantum technology promises in this particular matter—absolutely secure communications—is to be realized, then, if it is to happen, let it happen even through quantum teleportation! Many, indeed, repeatedly emphasize that the demand for “secure communications” is crucial in the post-Snowden era. Meanwhile, as we continue to navigate the age of self-exposure and the voluntary surrender of privacy to states (their armies and police forces) and corporations, the question becomes reasonable: For whom is communication security crucial, and why?
However, before we tackle such a question, there is something else that also holds significance. The fact that quantum physics, a theory approaching its hundredth birthday, comes to converge—quite some time later—with so-called information and communication technologies. If the latter constitute the spearhead of technological restructuring, this convergence—shaped by the intentions and necessities of capital—certainly holds particular interest.
quantum theory versus the certainties of classical mechanics (I)
What are the basic principles of what was called in the early decades of the 20th century quantum mechanics? What does it look like, and mainly, how does it differ from what we know as the immutable laws of classical physics? Although it is impossible within a few pages to answer such questions, nevertheless we should keep in mind some basic elements regarding the origin and evolution of some modern “innovations”, such as quantum informatics/computing. Not only because quantum communication experiments are now being attempted even in space, but also because science as an idea2 is founded upon the concepts and “paradoxes” of quantum mechanics. These concepts seem to come into conflict and contradictions many times, not merely with the laws of classical physics themselves, but even with more fundamental axiomatic characteristics of classical mechanics.
Fundamental characteristics of classical physics (-mechanics) are causality and the consequent ability to accurately represent the world as objective reality. The establishment of these characteristics arises from the ability to conduct independent and repeatable experiments and measurements that reproduce / verify the same expected theoretical results each time. In this way, fundamental causal relationships are produced between the given (initial) state of the observed physical object and the results of measurements made on it, as the system changes in space and time (subsequent states).
This so-called mechanistic worldview of classical physics has, for several centuries now, included many of science’s “sacred monsters”: from Newton’s laws (17th century), to Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory (19th century), and Einstein’s formulation of the special and general theory of relativity (early 20th century). At the beginning of the 20th century, when educational systems had not yet been established as a fundamental state institution, all these could only concern discussions among scientists. Many of them at the time appeared certain that classical mechanics was able to interpret the entirety of physical phenomena. Or nearly certain: exactly during the same period (late 19th – early 20th century), the same tool, the experiment, which until then had served in the production and confirmation of scientific theories, began to lead to the first contradictions. A multitude of experimental data emerging from the study of atomic-scale phenomena could not be adequately interpreted by classical mechanics.
In order to present here just one such example concerning the penetration of natural sciences into the microscopic world and the contradictions it caused with the previously accepted certainties, we translate an excerpt from the introduction of the book “The Principles of Quantum Mechanics” by P. A. M. Dirac:
As another illustration of the failure of classical mechanics we may consider the behaviour of light. On the one hand, we have the phenomena of interference and diffraction of light, which can be interpreted only on the basis of wave theory; on the other hand, we have phenomena such as the photoelectric effect and scattering by free electrons, which show that light consists of small particles. These particles, called photons, each have a definite energy and momentum, which depends on the frequency of the light, and appear to have the same real existence as electrons or any other particles known in physics. A fraction of a photon has never been observed.
Experiments have shown that this anomalous behavior is not a peculiarity of light, but is entirely general. All particles of matter have wave properties, which can be revealed under the appropriate conditions. Here we have a very striking and general example of the collapse of classical mechanics—not simply an inaccuracy in the laws of motion, but an inadequacy of the concepts to provide us with a description of what happens on an atomic scale.
Dirac, P. A. M., 1930, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
The necessity to distance ourselves from classical ideas when one wishes to consider the ultimate form of matter can be understood not only from experimentally proven facts, but also from general philosophical starting points…
Subsequently, Dirac, as he deals with the infinite subdivision of matter and the ability of humans to observe it through experiments, concludes:
…we must revise our ideas about causality. Causality applies only to a system that remains undisturbed. If a system is small, we cannot observe it without producing a serious disturbance and therefore we cannot expect to find any causal connection between the results and our observations. Causality can be considered to apply to undisturbed systems and the equations that will be set up to describe an undisturbed system will be differential equations expressing the causal connection between the states at one time and the states at a subsequent time. These equations will be in close correspondence with the equations of classical mechanics, but they will be only indirectly connected with the results of observations. There is an inevitable uncertainty in calculating the observational results, as our theory generally allows us to compute only the probability that we will obtain a particular result when we make an observation.
In this treatise on quantum mechanics, Dirac did not merely confine himself to words. The 82 sections of his book include 785 mathematical equations. In any case, no theory in physics could survive for long without being accompanied by a complete mathematical “arsenal.” Fundamental concepts and propositions of quantum theory, such as the uncertainty principle, the superposition of states of matter, and the “involvement” of the measuring apparatus in the very outcome of the experiment, flirt dangerously with the denial of an objectively measurable reality and could be regarded by classical physicists as anti-realist or/and metaphysical.
In the microcosm, the causality of classical physics should be replaced by the probabilistic interpretation of the equations of quantum mechanics. Only in this way could a particle be conceived as possessing multiple states simultaneously: through the confirmation that the probabilities of occurrence of each of the possible outcomes predicted by the equations can be experimentally verified. And so it happened: experimental setups and observers overcame their “existential” problem and from mechanisms of certainty proof they were transformed into mechanisms of probability verification.
With a crucial difference: the very measuring devices, the very experimental equipment of the observation, “participate” in the emergence of the observed “reality”, become part of it and determine in an uncertain/random way the outcome of the measurement. In this way, the once “external” observer of “objective reality” himself becomes a factor in the relationship between observation and matter, becomes the vehicle of the transition from the possible quantum state of the invisible, uncertain system to the knowledge of one (each time different) of the possible values of a magnitude that can be measured.
quantum theory versus the certainties of classical mechanics (II)
If the above briefly summarize some of the basic characteristics of quantum mechanics compared to classical mechanics, this does not mean that there has been or there is some consensus regarding them among experts in the field. The “windows,” especially around the issue of quantum measurement, were and remain wide open. As a result, the multiplicity of interpretations of quantum mechanical theory and the physical significance of its mathematical formulas can hardly find another equivalent in the history of science. One can search and find numerous heated debates on the issues of quantum mechanics. Such debates are included in the formulation of “serious” alternative quantum theories or/and interpretations with mathematical arguments, in several books-publications-PhDs on the philosophy of science with ontological and epistemological considerations, and end up appearing, a century later, even in …arguments in forums and social networks.
From the set of “serious” intra-scientific oppositions that erupted regarding quantum theory from the 1930s onwards, we will focus on one that seems to have particular significance for what now appears as quantum information theory and quantum computing. This is a thought experiment by Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen, which led to what became known as the EPR paradox (EPR paradox) from the initials of the authors of the corresponding publication in 1935.3 In this text, an attempt is made to prove that quantum mechanical theory is incomplete. The theoretical/mathematical tools of quantum mechanics themselves are used against it as a “criterion of reality.”
The EPR case is interpreted as follows: If quantum theory (along with its mathematics) can describe reality, we will formulate an experiment where this reality (as described by quantum theory) comes into conflict with other fundamental characteristics of reality that cannot be disputed.
After intense discussions and disagreements that followed its publication,4 the “paradox” finally emerges as a reversal of the original EPR argument: quantum theory can be considered complete (its conclusions correspond to reality) only if two more fundamental characteristics of classical physical sciences, which until then could not be questioned, are violated: the principle of locality and separability. What then are those elements that EPR considered immutable aspects of physical reality in their thought experiment?5
(Separability) EPR consider it given that, for a composite system consisting of two parts (e.g., particles), when these are separated in space, each of them corresponds to some “reality”.
(Locality) EPR consider given a principle of locality according to which, if two systems are far enough apart from each other, the fact of measuring (or the absence of measurement) of one system does not directly affect the reality corresponding to the (distant) other system, nor can it influence the results of its measurement.
Based on the above assumptions, which intuitively and empirically seem something more than correct and logical, the EPR conclude:
Indeed, one would never arrive at our conclusion [that quantum theory is not complete] if one insisted that two or more physical quantities can be regarded as simultaneous elements of reality only when they can be measured or predicted simultaneously… However, this makes reality … [in the second system] … dependent on the measurement process, which is performed on the first system and which does not disturb the second system in any way. No reasonable definition of reality could permit such a thing.
Einstein, A., B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, 1935, ibid.
Thirteen years later (1948), we read about the subject, from a letter by Einstein to Max Born:
Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/#1.3It is … characteristic of … physical objects that they are considered as arranged in the space-time continuum. An essential aspect of this arrangement is that [physical objects require], from a certain point in time onward, an existence independent of one another, since these objects “are located in different parts of space.” … The following idea characterizes the relative independence of objects (A and B) when they are far apart in space: an external influence on A does not have a direct effect on B.
Cited from: Born, M., (ed.), 1971, The Born-Einstein Letters, New York: Walker.
The “paradox,” therefore, that arises (for those who consider quantum theory complete and disagree with the assumptions of EPR, and of Einstein in particular, about physical reality), is the “action at a distance” of one part of the system on the other, instantaneously, without any known communication between them, at the moment of their simultaneous measurement. To make clearer the “No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this” (mentioned in the EPR text), we copy for the general idea of the concept of locality from Wikipedia:
Locality was revealed by field theories and classical physics. The general idea is that for an action at one point to be able to have an effect at another point, something must exist in the space between these two points (such as a field, a wave, a particle) that carries (as a medium) the action. In order for an influence to be exerted, something must travel through the space between the two points, carrying the influence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality
The term “quantum entanglement”6 was formulated in a series of publications by Schrödinger in 1935-1936.7 8 For these publications, according to him, the main motivation was the EPR publication. In these texts, Schrödinger, introducing the concept of entanglement, argues among other things that the possibility for exactly what is discussed as “paradoxical” (the possibility for “action at a distance”) constitutes the basic characteristic of quantum mechanics and at the same time its divorce from “classical lines of thought”:
Schrödinger, E., 1935, op. cit.When two systems, whose states we know from their respective representations, enter into a temporary physical interaction due to known forces between them, and when after some time of interaction the systems separate again, then they can no longer be described in the same way as before, that is, by assigning to each of them its own representation. I would not say that this is one [feature among others] but the [basic, fundamental] characteristic feature of quantum theory, that which brings about the overall departure from classical lines of thought. With the interaction, the two representations [the quantum states] have become entangled.
quantum computing: why not?
One can imagine that such disagreements, between major “names” in the natural sciences, would sooner or later resurface, this time in the laboratories of experimental setups. The distance, however, between formulating a “paradox” and the emergence of quantum informatics appears vast. Yet, faced with even the hypothetical possibility of exponential multiplication of computational processing power and memory, no amount of “paradoxicality” could be sufficient.
The close relationship of quantum entanglement with the new sciences of quantum information can now be found in several relevant textbooks. Immediately below, we translate a passage from the introduction of the book Quantum Information and Computation by J. Bub. In this excerpt, J. Bub presents quantum entanglement as a prerequisite and foundation for the emergence of the new, powerful capabilities of quantum information/computing:
In the 1990s, we witnessed the development of quantum information theory, based on the understanding that quantum entanglement, instead of being an insignificant source of discomfort for physics—which would interest only philosophers—can actually be exploited as a non-classical communication channel for performing information processing tasks that would be impossible in a classical world… This has led to an explosion of research among physicists and computer scientists on applying ideas from information theory to quantum computing (which exploits quantum entanglement to design quantum computers, achieving efficient performance of specific computational procedures), to quantum communication (new forms of communication assisted by entanglement, such as quantum teleportation), and to quantum cryptography (the clear formulation of cryptographic protocols that guarantee unconditional security against eavesdropping and copying, based on the laws of quantum mechanics…)
Bub, J., 2006. “Quantum Information and Computation” in John Earman and Jeremy Butterfield (eds.), Philosophy of Physics (Handbook of Philosophy of Science), Amsterdam: North Holland.
Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0512125v2.pdf
Will the author allow us to disagree at one point: well, not quite an “insignificant source of embarrassment” for physics! Only if we exclude the great personalities and the great “truths” of classical physics that were at risk of being toppled from their thrones; then, okay… In any case, it becomes at least apparent that the mobilization, even of the so-called “paradoxes” of physics, has now entered for good into the repertoire of pursuits of an “extreme” informational technological restructuring.
Subsequently, the author presents a list of key milestones that are now referred to as part of the recent history of quantum information science/computing. The following theoretical and experimental achievements are considered particularly significant for those seeking to confirm the power of quantum entanglement and apply it, in some way, to quantum computer systems and quantum communication systems:
Bell’s analysis [1964] reversed the EPR argument, showing that Einstein’s assumptions of separability and locality, which are applicable in classical physics and underlie the incompleteness argument [of quantum theory], are incompatible with certain quantum statistical correlations (which are not taken into account by EPR) of separated systems … in entangled states. Subsequent experiments [Aspect et al. 1981, 1982] confirm these non-classical correlations in arrangements that ruled out the possibility of any kind of … classical communication between the separated systems.
Bub, J., 2006, op. cit.
In 1980, various authors, such as Wiesner, Bennett, and Brassard [Wiesner, 1983, Bennett and Brassard, 1984, Bennett et al. 1982] noted that it was possible to exploit features of the measurement process in quantum mechanics to prevent undetectable eavesdropping in certain cryptographic protocols…
… Feynman [1982] studied the problem of efficiently simulating the evolution of physical systems using quantum resources, … which includes the idea of quantum computing, but it was Deutsch [1985, 1989] who specified the basic characteristics of a universal quantum computer and formulated the first genuinely quantum algorithm.
Following Deutsch’s work on quantum logic gates and quantum networks, several quantum algorithms emerged for performing computational tasks more efficiently than any known classical algorithm … The most spectacular of these is Shor’s algorithm [1994, 1997] for factoring a positive integer N=pq into two prime numbers, which is exponentially faster than the best-known classical algorithm. Since factoring into primes is the basis of the most widely used public-key encryption scheme (currently applied universally in communications between banking and commercial transactions over the Internet), Shor’s conclusion has enormous practical significance …
The practical significance, mentioned at the end of the above excerpt, stems from the theoretical (still) possibility that a sufficiently powerful future quantum computer, if implemented, will be able to “break” any classical encryption key, based on what we know so far. Theoretically, the best possible response to such a scenario would be… quantum cryptography. Such practical significances are also the most useful…
this knot in the neck (and in the mind)
We should remember and remind ourselves that what we know as “informatics” historically began as a massive decryption program during World War II… which means that quantum cryptography is initially intended for military use.
This does not apply to the entirety of quantum informatics. The possibilities that open up are such (perhaps inconceivable given our current data) that quantum computers, when they become practically feasible (there are many serious technical issues that need to be resolved…) will quickly enter non-military use; initially wherever information accumulation takes place.
Beyond these, there is a serious issue. We suspect that for most readers, reading the above was a frustrating experience; no wonder if they abandoned it. Let them not pity us (we are not selling figs), nor be disappointed—at least not initially. What happens to them is logical—but it has a not-so-acknowledged origin. The gap between “average” social knowledge and technological applications, including their basic techno/scientific assumptions, has become enormous “step by step” throughout the 20th century—and into the early 21st. Under “normal” conditions, the only thing to expect is for this gap to become monstrous.
Practically speaking, there’s already a gap even with technologies from the 19th century! How many people can fix a dripping faucet in their home? How many can change an electrical outlet? Neither hydraulics nor electricity have been “cutting-edge technologies” for the last 80 or 60 years; yet the gap, even between average social experience/knowledge and such ancient technologies, is still significant. We’re not even discussing makeshift repairs of minor mechanical damages in a modern car; even though cars are among the most commonplace objects of everyday life. As for today’s information gadgets, like “smartphones” and computers? Let’s not even go there.9
So, what can one expect regarding the “average” adoption/understanding of the basics of quantum computing?
It so happens that modern sciences, always in combination with the technologies that accompany them, cause many headaches anyway. Especially for those who are possessed by the certainty that they understand or that they can comprehend to a satisfactory degree how these technological creations work. Let us mention two more simple, everyday examples: the radio or television work. When asked how such a thing is possible, that is, how it is feasible for sound or the combination of sound and image to be produced, transmitted through the air and/or via satellite, and reproduced at the destination, the answer is not at all easy. One would have to refer to the theory of electric circuits, the electromagnetic field, signal theory, and a number of other techno-scientific headings, which include mathematical formulas, physical laws, protocols, and operating principles. Alternatively, depending on the time one has at their disposal, one could settle for a more “abstract”, educational-explanatory model of description that includes diagrams and images.
In fact, deep knowledge and understanding—even of technologies that are now outdated—is something that escapes even those who have spent considerable time in the educational system’s examination factories, e.g. solving complex equations or describing principles and natural laws governing the operation of such systems. The reasons why this happens are many, and their investigation could focus on the division of labor under capitalism as well as on the educational system itself. However, what interests us here as yet another observation, without underestimating the search for these reasons (quite the opposite!), is that the ignorance of users/operators of one or another technology generally does not constitute a problem, nor does it cause headaches—at least not as many as their incessant use does!
The formation of distinct techno-scientific objects is a prerequisite for the explosion of technological applications, as well as innovations of capital. At the same time, any realistic acceptance of the technological applications that arise from each such object is based on the belief (in the sense of trust) that the “laws of nature” and the linguistic-mathematical formulations that accompany them have a recognized validity, within the “scientific community,” at least. This is a metaphysical faith.
Metaphysics may veil the chasm, but it does not eliminate it. And while everything may evolve “smoothly” (above the chasm), including, mainly, a continuously developing irrational, “magical” social thinking about everything (with corresponding behaviors), we have not only the right but also the duty to loudly wonder: how can labor criticism be relevant while, beyond everything else, this huge void exists?
From the side of capitalist interests and the emerging quantum computing, fundamental concepts that formed the “cultural” and scientific basis of the former civil society, such as causality, locality and separability, do not have to be openly and publicly questioned. No! Technological / capitalist “development” will not blatantly cause a destabilizing “earthquake” in traditional social beliefs! It will bypass them, balm them, and proceed to new, even more “mysterious” applications. Even everyday ones. The paranoia that will thus be cultivated (is already being cultivated) through alienation and constant estrangement in relation to the very familiar daily technological ecosystem / environment will also be useful from a capitalist perspective. As long as the daily technological ecosystem / environment “works”, everything will seem ok… The moment it suffers some damage, there will be caused, as a reaction, that kind of psychological and physical collapse / paralysis that until now one encountered in natural disasters (e.g. earthquakes). Consequently, even greater social dependence from specialized / separated technicians and, even more, companies or/and states will be caused.
Agreed. These things happen from the side of capital. Is there another (and much more: opposite) side? Must there be one? If the initial answer is “yes”, then we cannot (and should not!) avoid that kind of painful counter-knowledge that concerns the external but not superficial approach to the separated techno-scientific “knowledges” – within or outside quotation marks.
If we do not insist on this, all that remains is the pseudo-alternative of a visual neo-neo-romanticism, an empty and easily manipulable neo-neo-“return to nature,” etc. etc. etc.
Program Error
cyborg #07 – 10/2016
