Tag Archives: quantum entanglement

Vint Cerf and the Interplanetary Internet

This is an interview with the true inventor of the InnerTubes.

Not Al Gore.

From Wired:

When some future Mars colonist is able to open his browser and watch a cat in a shark suit chasing a duck while riding a roomba, they will have Vint Cerf to thank.

In his role as Google’s chief internet evangelist, Cerf has spent much of his time thinking about the future of the computer networks that connect us all. And he should know. Along with Bob Kahn, he was responsible for developing the internet protocol suite, commonly known as TCP/IP, that underlies the workings of the net. Not content with just being a founding father of the internet on this planet, Cerf has spent years taking the world wide web out of this world.

Working with NASA and JPL, Cerf has helped develop a new set of protocols that can stand up to the unique environment of space, where orbital mechanics and the speed of light make traditional networking extremely difficult. Though this space-based network is still in its early stages and has few nodes, he said that we are now at “the front end of what could be an evolving and expanding interplanetary backbone.”

Father of the Internet Vint Cerf is responsible for helping develop the TCP/IP protocols that underly the web. In his role as Google’s chief internet evangelist, Cerf is dedicated to thinking about the future of the net, including its use in space. Image: Google/Weinberg-Clark

Wired talked to Cerf about the interplanetary internet’s role in space exploration, the frustrations of network management on the final frontier, and the future headline he never wants to see.

Wired: Though it’s been around a while, the concept of an interplanetary internet is probably new to a lot of people. How exactly do you build a space network?

Vint Cerf: Right, it’s actually not new at all – this project started in 1998. And it got started because 1997 was very nearly the 25th anniversary of the design of the internet. Bob Kahn and I did that work in 1973. So back in 1997, I asked myself what should I be doing that will be needed 25 years from then. And, after consultation with colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, we concluded that we needed much richer networking than was then available to NASA and other space faring agencies.

Up until that time and generally speaking, up until now, the entire communications capabilities for space exploration had been point-to-point radio links. So we began looking at the possibilities of TCIP/IP as a protocol for interplanetary communication. We figure it worked on Earth and it ought to work on Mars. The real question was, “Would it work between the planets?” And the answer turned out to be, “No.”

The reason for this is two-fold: First of all, the speed of light is slow relative to distances in the solar system. A one-way radio signal from Earth to Mars takes between three and half and 20 minutes. So round trip time is of course double that. And then there’s the other problem: planetary rotation. If you’re communicating with something on the surface of the planet, it goes out of communication as the planet rotates. It breaks the available communications and you have to wait until the planet rotates back around again. So what we have is variable delay and disruption, and TCP does not do terribly well in those kinds of situations.

One of the things that the TCP/IP protocols assume is that there isn’t enough memory in each of the routers to hold anything. So if a packet shows up and it’s destined for a place for which you have an available path, but there isn’t enough room, then typically the packet is discarded.

We developed a new suite of protocols that we called the Bundle protocols, which are kind of like internet packets in the sense that they’re chunks of information. They can be quite big and they basically get sent like bundles of information. We do what’s called storing forward, which is the way all packet switching works. It’s just in this case the interplanetary protocol has the capacity to store quite a bit, and usually for quite a long time before we can get rid of it based on connectivity to the next hop.

Wired: What are the challenges with working and making a communications network in space as opposed to a ground-based internet?

Cerf: Among the hard things, first of all, is that we couldn’t use the domain name system in its current form. I can give you a quick illustration why that’s the case: Imagine for a moment you’re on Mars, and somebody is trying to open up an HTTP web connection to Earth. They’ve given you a URL that contains a domain name in it, but before you can open up a TCP connection you need to have an IP address.

So you will have to do a domain name lookup, which can translate the domain name you’re trying to lookup into an IP address. Now remember you’re on Mars and the domain name you’re trying to look up is on Earth. So you send out a DNS lookup. But it may take anywhere from 40 minutes to an unknown amount of time — depending on what kind of packet loss you have, whether there’s a period of disruption based on planetary rotation, all that kind of stuff — before you get an answer back. And then it may be the wrong answer, because by the time it gets back maybe the node has moved and now it has a different IP address. And from there it just gets worse and worse. If you’re sitting around Jupiter, and trying to do a lookup, many hours go by and then it’s just impossible.

So we had to break it into a two-phase lookup and use what’s called delayed binding. First you figure out which planet you’re going to, then you route the traffic to that planet, and only then you do a local lookup, possibly using the domain name.

The other thing is when you are trying to manage a network with this physical scope and all the uncertainty delays, the things we typically do for network management don’t work very well. There’s a protocol called SNMP, the simple network management protocol, and it is based on the idea that you can send a packet out and get an answer back in a few milliseconds, or a few hundreds of milliseconds. If you’re familiar with the word ping, you’ll know what I mean, because you ping something and expect to get an answer back fairly quickly. If you don’t get it back in a minute or two, you begin to conclude that there is something wrong and the thing isn’t available. But in space, it takes a long time for the signal to even get to the destination let alone get an answer back. So network management turns out to be a lot harder in this environment.

Then the other thing we had to worry about was security. The reason for that should be obvious — one of the things we wanted to avoid was the possibility of a headline that says: “15-Year-Old Takes Over Mars Net.” Against that possibility we put quite a bit of security into the system, including strong authentication, three way handshakes, cryptographic keys, and things of that sort in order to reduce the likelihood that someone would abuse access to the space network.

Wired: Because it has to communicate across such vast distances, it seems like the interplanetary internet must be huge.

Cerf: Well, in purely physical terms — that is, in terms of distance — it’s a pretty large network. But the number of nodes is pretty modest. At the moment, the elements participating in it are devices in planet Earth, including the Deep Space Network, which is operated at JPL. That consists of three 70-meter dishes plus a smattering of 35-meter dishes that can reach out into the solar system with point-to-point radio links. Those are part of the TDRSS [tee-driss] system, which is used for a lot of near-Earth communications by NASA. The ISS also has several nodes on board capable of using this particular set of protocols.

NASA/JSC

Two orbiters around Mars are running the prototype versions of this software, and virtually all the information that’s coming back from Mars is coming back via these store-forward relays. The Spirit and Opportunity rovers on the planet and the Curiosity rover are using these protocols. And then there’s the Phoenix lander, which descended to the north pole of Mars in 2008. It also was using these protocols until the Martian winter shut it down.

And finally, there’s a spacecraft in orbit around the sun, which is actually quite far away, called EPOXI [the spacecraft was 32 million kilometers from Earth when it tested the interplanetary protocols]. It has been used to rendezvous with two comets in the last decade to determine their mineral makeup.

But what we hope will happen over time — assuming these protocols are adopted by the Consultative Committee on Space Data Systems, which standardizes space communication protocols — then every spacefaring nation launching either robotic or manned missions has the option of using these protocols. And that means that all the spacecraft that have been outfitted with those protocols could be used during the primary mission, and could then be repurposed to become relays in a stored forward network. I fully expect to see these protocols used for both manned and robotic exploration in the future.

Wired: What are the next steps to expand this?

Cerf: We want to complete the standardization with the rest of the spacefaring community. Also, not all pieces are fully validated yet, including our strong authentication system. Then second, we need to know how well we can do flow control in this very, very peculiar and potentially disrupted environment.

Third, we need to verify that we can do serious real-time things including chat, video and voice. We will need to learn how to go from what appears to be an interactive real-time chat, like one over the phone, to probably an email-like exchange, where you might have voice and video attached but it’s not immediately interactive.

Delivering the bundle is very much like delivering a piece of email. If there’s a problem with email it usually gets retransmitted, and after a while you time out. The bundle protocol has similar characteristics, so you anticipate that you have variable delay that could be very long. Sometimes if you’ve tried many times and don’t get a response, you have to assume the destination is not available.

Wired: We often talk about how the things we invent for space are being used here on Earth. Are there things about the interplanetary internet that could potentially be used on the ground?

Cerf: Absolutely. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded tests with the U.S. Marine Corps on tactical military communication using these highly resilient and disruption-tolerant protocols. We had successful tests that showed in a typical hostile communication environment that we were able to put three to five times more data through this disrupted system than we could with traditional TCP/IP.

Part of the reason is that we assume we can store traffic in the network. When there’s high activity, we don’t have to retransmit from end to end, we can just retransmit from one of the intermediate points in the system. This use of memory in the network turns out to be quite effective. And of course we can afford to do that because memory has gotten so inexpensive.

The European Commission has also sponsored a really interesting project using the DTM protocols in northern Sweden. In an area called Lapland, there’s a group called the Saami reindeer herders. They’ve been herding reindeer for 8,000 years up there. And the European Commission sponsored a research project managed by the Lulea University of Technology in northern Sweden to put these protocols on board all-terrain vehicles in laptops. This way, you could run a Wi-Fi service in villages in Northern Sweden and drop messages off and pick them up according to the protocols. As you move around, you were basically a data mule carrying information from one village to another.

Wired: There was also an experiment called Mocup that involved remote controlling a robot on Earth from the space station. These protocols were used, right?

Cerf: Yes, we used the DTN protocols for that. We were all really excited for that because, although the protocols were originally designed to deal with very long and uncertain delay, when there is high quality connectivity, we can use it for real-time communication. And that’s exactly what they did with the little German rover.

I think in general communication will benefit from this. Putting these protocols in mobile phones, for instance, would create a more powerful and resilient communications platform than what we typically have today

Wired: So if I have poor reception on my cell phone at my house, I could still call my parents?

Cerf: Well, actually what might happen is that you could store what you said and they would eventually get it. But it wouldn’t be real time. If the disruption lasts for an appreciable length of time, it would arrive later. But at least the information would eventually get there.

What about quantum entanglement?

There’s an experiment to be done in 2016 which an entangled signal is to be sent to a satellite launched by the Chinese, ( The Race to Bring Quantum Teleportation to Your World ).

Will that make the Interplanetary Internet obsolete before it literally gets off the ground?

Or will quantum entanglement enhance it?

Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist on Creating the Interplanetary Internet

Proving Shroedinger’s Cat and The Montauk Chair

Can a real world version of quantum theory’s “Shroedinger’s Cat” be finally realized and proof that ‘living’ objects can be subjected to ‘superposition?’

In quantum theory, a single object can be doing two different things at once. This so-called “superposition” is a delicate state, destroyed by any contact with the outside world. The largest objects that have been superposed so far are molecules. It is hard to put a much larger object such as a cat or human into a superposition because air molecules and photons are always bouncing off it.

But it might be possible with a small life form, according to Oriol Romero-Isart of the Max Planck Institute for Quantum Optics in Garching, Germany, and his colleagues. They hope to prove the concept with the flu virus, which exhibits some properties of life, because it can survive in a vacuum – solving the problem of pesky air molecules.

Laser hold

Their scheme would use two laser beams, whose light exerts a gentle force on matter. Where the two beams cross they form an “optical cavity” holding the virus in place.

By adjusting the frequency of the beams, the laser photons can be made to absorb the vibration energy of the trapped virus about its centre of mass until it is slowed to its lowest possible energy state. In this “ground state” the virus is ready to go into a superposition.

Sending a laser photon towards the trap should do the trick. Since a photon is a quantum entity it has more than one option open to it. Thus it will be both reflected and transmitted at the trap, putting it into a superposition.

By impinging on the virus, it forces it into a superposition of both its ground state and next vibrational energy state. Now the virus should be doing two different things at once – the equivalent of you simultaneously mowing the lawn and doing the shopping. “They have come up with a really neat experiment – inventive and I think feasible,” says Peter Knight of Imperial College London.

Romero-Isart and his colleagues speculate that they could pull off the same feat with a tardigrade, or water bear, an animal less than a millimetre in size that can survive extreme temperatures and a vacuum …

Hmm.., could mainstream physics be finally catching onto what DARPA has been supposedly doing to human subjects (children) using retrieved (or traded?) UFO technology since the 1960s?

Listen to this podcast at Red Ice Creations as Henrik Palmgren interviews Andrew D. Basiago about Project Pegasus, Stargates, Montauk Chair and psychic powers!

Could we create quantum creatures in the lab?

hat tip

The Biocentric Universe

My pal Geez ought to appreciate this one:

Biomedical researcher Robert Lanza has been on the frontier of cloning and stem cell studies for more than a decade, so he’s well-acclimated to controversy. But his book “Biocentrism” is generating controversy on a different plane by arguing that our consciousness plays a central role in creating the cosmos.

“By treating space and time as physical things, science picks a completely wrong starting point for understanding the world,” Lanza declares.

Any claim that space and time aren’t cold, hard, physical things has to raise an eyebrow. Some of the reactions to Lanza’s ideas, first set forth two years ago in an essay for The American Scholar, brand them as “pseudo-scientific philosophical claptrap” or “no better than any religion.”

Lanza admits that the reviews haven’t all been glowing, particularly among some physicists. “Their response has been much how you’d expect priests to respond to stem cell research,” he told me Monday.

Other physicists, however, point out that Lanza’s view is fully in line with the perspective from quantum mechanics that the observer plays a huge role in how reality is observed.

“So what Lanza says in this book is not new,” Richard Conn Henry, a physics and astronomy professor at Johns Hopkins University, said in a book review. “Then why does Robert have to say it at all? It is because we, the physicists, do not say it – or if we do say it, we only whisper it, and in private – furiously blushing as we mouth the words. True, yes; politically correct, hell no!”

True, what Lanza says is certainly not new, the Hindus and Zen Buddhists have been teaching this for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

It just took the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to verify it, supposedly.

When you read the ‘Biocentrism’ article, it does make sense, Lanza doesn’t deluge you with high-sounding technical or philosopical terms that belittles the reader.

I can see why physicists claim Lanza is speaking from the Land of Woo though, it’s hard to imagine a Universe that just wouldn’t exist if there weren’t ‘observers’ making it exist. It goes against certain variations of Copernicanism that claim that humans aren’t privileged observers of the Universe (mediocrity principle).

Is Lanza claiming we are creating reality as we go along and it would cease to exist if humans suddenly became extinct?

Or if there were no humans to observe the Universe, the Wheel would continue to turn?

The universe in your head

Biocentrism

Hat tip

……………………………………………..

Quantum Biology, Satellite galaxies mystery

Quantum “biology?”

From tunneling to entanglement, the special properties of the quantum realm allow events to unfold at speeds and efficiencies that would be unachievable with classical physics alone. Could quantum mechanisms be driving some of the most elegant and inexplicable processes of life? For years experts doubted it: Quantum phenomena typically reveal themselves only in lab settings, in vacuum chambers chilled to near absolute zero. Biological systems are warm and wet. Most researchers thought the thermal noise of life would drown out any quantum weirdness that might rear its head.
[…]

One of the most significant quantum observations in the life sciences comes from Fleming and his collaborators. Their study of photosynthesis in green sulfur bacteria, published in 2007 in Nature [subscription required], tracked the detailed chemical steps that allow plants to harness sunlight and use it to convert simple raw materials into the oxygen we breathe and the carbohydrates we eat. Specifically, the team examined the protein scaffold connecting the bacteria’s external solar collectors, called the chlorosome, to reaction centers deep inside the cells. Unlike electric power lines, which lose as much as 20 percent of energy in transmission, these bacteria transmit energy at a staggering efficiency rate of 95 percent or better.

To unearth the bacteria’s inner workings, the researchers zapped the connective proteins with multiple ultrafast laser pulses. Over a span of femto­seconds, they followed the light energy through the scaffolding to the cellular reaction centers where energy conversion takes place.

This is a very intriguing theory. Biologists have been studying the process of photosynthesis for generations and have yet come up with a plausible explanation as to why it is as efficient as it is. They know the chemical process that produces and powers it, but not the extraordinary speed in which it operates.

Also the article goes on to postulate the sense of smell and consciousness might have at their core a quantum component.

The article doesn’t claim to have the last word on the nature of these things, but the quantum world is the foundation on which all things are built.

That is fact.

Is Quantum Mechanics Controlling Your Thoughts?

Source

________________________

Whither dark matter?

 Newton’s theory is questioned by many modern cosmologists, whose competing theories of gravitation seek to explain the large number of discrepancies between actual measurements of astronomical phenomena and predictions that are made using theoretical models. The idea that ‘dark matter’ might be behind these inconsistencies has enjoyed much attention in recent years. However, proof of its existence is incipient.

In this latest research, Professor Kroupa and colleagues examined ‘satellite dwarf galaxies’, which, according to theoretical models, exist in the hundreds around most of the major galaxies, including the Milky Way. Some of these smaller galaxies are thought to contain only a few thousand stars (by comparison, the Milky Way, for instance, is estimated to contain more than 200 billion stars).

However, to date, only 30 dwarf satellite galaxies have been observed around the Milky Way. This large discrepancy is commonly attributed to the fact that they have few stars, which makes them too dim to be seen from so far away. But their detailed study has yielded some surprising results.

‘First of all, there is something unusual about their distribution,’ said Professor Kroupa. ‘The satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we found.’

The researchers found that all of the Milky Way’s ‘classical satellites’ (the 11 brightest dwarf galaxies) are located on approximately the same plane, forming a kind of disc. They also observed that most of the 11 galaxies rotate in the same direction around the Milky Way, in much the same way as planets revolve around the Sun.

The physicists’ explanation for these phenomena is that the satellites must have been created through collisions amongst younger galaxies. ‘The fragments produced by such an event can form rotating dwarf galaxies,’ explained Dr Manuel Metz, also of the Argelander Institute for Astronomy. However, he added, ‘theoretical calculations tell us that the satellites created cannot contain any dark matter’.

I don’t know about what most thinking folks take is on dark matter. In IMHO it’s a “cover” giving term encompassing phenomenon that mainstream astrophysicists have no idea what the hell it’s about, much like the all purpose term “ether” was during the 19th Century.

Oh sure, there’s photos of “stuff” the various scientific satellites have taken over the years that “might” be dark matter, but the jury is still out on most of them.

Maybe this is the start of a rethinking of the “standard model” of the Cosmos that uses gravity as its building block?

Dwarf satellite galaxy researchers say: ‘Maybe Newton was wrong’

UFO Disclosure, Spooky Entanglement

Tune in to the March 1st, ’09 Paracast interview of Stephen Bassett, Executive Director of The Paradigm Research Group, an UFO Disclosure group.

I don’t hold hope of “UFO Disclosure” of any type, but this interview is as entertaining as any Gene and Dave have ever done. Enjoy.

Stephen Bassett Interview

________________________

In quantum mechanics, a vanguard of physics where science often merges into philosophy, much of our understanding is based on conjecture and probabilities, but a group of researchers in Japan has moved one of the fundamental paradoxes in quantum mechanics into the lab for experimentation and observed some of the ‘spooky action of quantum mechanics’ directly.

Hardy’s Paradox, the axiom that we cannot make inferences about past events that haven’t been directly observed while also acknowledging that the very act of observation affects the reality we seek to unearth, poses a conundrum that quantum physicists have sought to overcome for decades. How do you observe quantum mechanics, atomic and sub-atomic systems that are so small-scale they cannot be described in classical terms, when the act of looking at them changes them permanently?

Interesting conundrum. Just how does one do this?

According to the New Journal of Physics, the scientists used “a form of “weak measurement” that observes entangled photons at the same time without interfering with their path.”

So, one cannot create their own reality by just observing it?

I don’t know about that, but this little post from Physorg.com just might confirm that hypothesis:

…while scientists have experimentally observed the failure of local realism in laboratories, no one has ever observed any non-local or non-realistic system on the macroscopic scale. Physicists have usually attributed this fact to decoherence: when quantum systems become macroscopic, they unavoidable interact with their environment, causing them to rapidly lose their quantum features. More recently, physicists Johannes Kofler and Caslav Brukner at the University of Vienna in Austria have suggested an alternative view: that the classical world emerges from the quantum world because our measurements of classical systems are too fuzzy, or coarse-grained, to detect quantum features of nature.

If I understand correctly, because our rulers and yardsticks only measure to the 1/32nds, we cannot tell whether the wood quarks in the 2 x 4 we just cut exist in this Universe or the one next to us.

Makes sense to me….

It’s Easier to Observe the Failure of Local Realism than Previously Thought

___________________

But…but…what about this?

It’s almost a year since Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva announced that they had calculated that a human eye ought to be able to detect entangled photons. “Entanglement in principle could be seen,” they concluded.

That’s extraordinary because it would mean that the humans involved in such an experiment would become entangled themselves, if only for an instant.

Gisin is a world leader in quantum entanglement and his claims are by no means easy to dismiss.

Now he’s going a step further saying that the human eye could be used in a Bell type experiment to sense spooky-action-at-a-distance. “Quantum experiments with human
eyes as detectors appear possible, based on a realistic model of the eye as a photon detector,” they say.

One problem is that human eyes cannot se single photons–a handful are needed to trigger a nerve impulse to the brain.

That might have scuppered the possibility of  a Bell-type experiment were it not for some interesting work from Francesco De Martini and buddies at the Universityof Rome, pointing out how the quantum properties of a single particle can be transferred to an ensemble of particles.

That allows a single entangled photon, which a human eye cannot see, to be amplified into a number of entangled photons that can be seen. The eye can then be treated like any other detector.

So which is it, does the simple act of intelligent observation affect reality or not?

Obviously the jury is still out!

Human eye could detect spooky action at a distance

____________________

Can we ever take the “Unidentified” out of UFOs?

If you are a serious UFO researcher and want to listen to professionals in the field, listen to this week’s Paracast with Gene Steinberg and David Biedney. They interview Richard Dolan, noted UFO researcher and author of “UFOs and the National Security State.

Biedney and Steinberg pull no punches in their interviews and are always intelligent and rational in scope (99% of the time).

http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/media.blubrry.com/paranormal/www.theparacast.com/podcasts/paracast_090222.mp3

___________________________________

On the other hand, here’s one of the mainstream explanations for UFOs:

Mysterious UFO sightings may go hand in hand with a puzzling natural phenomenon known as sprites — flashes high in the atmosphere triggered by thunderstorms.

The dancing lights have appeared above most thunderstorms throughout history, but researchers did not start studying them until one accidentally recorded a sighting on camera in 1989.

“Lightning from the thunderstorm excites the electric field above, producing a flash of light called a sprite,” said Colin Price, a geophysicist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. “We now understand that only a specific type of lightning is the trigger that initiates sprites aloft.”

Researchers have detected the flashes between 35 and 80 miles (56-129 km) from the ground, far above the 7 to 10 miles (11-16 km) where usual lightning occurs. Sprites can take the form of fast-paced balls of electricity, although previous footage has suggested streaks or tendrils.

The cause or function of the flashes remains murky, but Price suggested that they could explain some of the UFO reports which have cropped up over the years. That might provide some solace for UFO enthusiasts disappointed by human-caused hoaxes in the past.

The ball lightning explanation has been used before, but not in such a studied manner.

But what about the Stephenville, Texas and Chicago O’Hare airport UFOs? Are they ball lightning too? What about abductions, implants that can’t be explained, circular burnt areas and pieces of mysterious metals being left behind at some sites?

Ball lightning indeed.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090223-ufos-sprites-explained.html

___________________________

When all is said and done, could this be another explanation for the UFO phenomenon?:

It’s almost a year since Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva announced that they had calculated that a human eye ought to be able to detect entangled photons.

That’s extraordinary because it would mean that the humans involved in such an experiment would become entangled themselves, if only for an instant.
Gisin is a world leader in quantum entanglement and his claims are by no means easy to dismiss.

Now he’s going a step further saying that the human eye could be used in a Bell type experiment to sense spooky-action-at-a-distance. “Quantum experiments with human
eyes as detectors appear possible, based on a realistic model of the eye as a photon detector,” they say.

One problem is that human eyes cannot se single photons–a handful are needed to trigger a nerve impulse to the brain.

That might have scuppered the possibility of  a Bell-type experiment were it not for some interesting work from Francesco De Martini and buddies at the Universityof Rome, pointing out how the quantum properties of a single particle can be transferred to an ensemble of particles.

That allows a single entangled photon, which a human eye cannot see, to be amplified into a number of entangled photons that can be seen. The eye can then be treated like any other detector.

 

 

So could we be seeing entangled photons from another civilization that is not actually physically here, but is some sort of advanced sensor technology?

It could explain the seemingly impossible flight characteristics of UFOs.

Then again, we are left with the same conundrums that the “sprite” hypothesis does.

http://arxivblog.com/?p=1230

Quantum entanglement remote sensing technology paper; http://www.bufora.org.uk/Articles/UFOart.pdf

___________________________________