Making an unpickable Lock

[tarustwins]

I understand the idea behind the "unpickable lock" but you have to remember nothing is 100% secure. Like NKT said, "The best security today is, if wildly adopted, likely to get beaten tomorrow" which from my understanding is completely true. Remember when everyone said that fiber optic cable couldn't be tapped without detection? Until someone tapped one and it wasen't detected. There was a time when 32bit encryption was believed to be unbreakable. If that was the case, why is browser standard now 128? It only takes a matter of time.

Which also brings up ReverseLogic's post.
If you can make an unpickable lock, what good would it do if you can just chop throught the door. In reality, isn't a lock only there to discourage someone from getting in? You would have to have a pretty good building, and all outside access would have to be of equal security.

While an unpickable lock does have it's place, I would think it would be more in the line of a toy as opposed to real security, "what do you do if it's so secure, that there is absolutly no way to 1. get a duplicate key, or 2. no way to get a replacement key. How do you get in then if you are the actual owner or have permission to access the property?

While flaws in the lock are it's weakness, they do have to be there.

then again, I am a n00b, so I could just be talking out of my rear.

[Dent]

There was a time when 32bit encryption was believed to be unbreakable.

Perhaps among laymen, but no cryptologist worth his salt would ever declare *anything* unbreakable... only hard to break at a certain time..


However, quantom encrypted one-time key is unbreakable, unless we break a couple laws of physics or learn to scan photon's in "sub-space" or some other alternate dimension that won't disturb the photon itself...

But under current laws, it's un-breakable!

[Romstar]

There was a time when 32bit encryption was believed to be unbreakable.

Perhaps among laymen, but no cryptologist worth his salt would ever declare *anything* unbreakable... only hard to break at a certain time..


However, quantom encrypted one-time key is unbreakable, unless we break a couple laws of physics or learn to scan photon's in "sub-space" or some other alternate dimension that won't disturb the photon itself...

But under current laws, it's un-breakable!

Maybe by your understanding of quantum physics. I've heard this poppy _ before, and more than a few nobel prize winners and others have declared it bunk. It's simply difficult, and only because of the hardware required and the computational requirements.

It's nothing special about the quantum state of any sub-atomic particle. It's pretty much a mastabatory exercise anyway, much like Schrodinger's cat. Is it alive or dead?

They used to say that you couldn't scan the quantum state of three adjacent atoms, because by the time you scaned the third, the first two would have changed state. That little problem was put to rest in 1994 when they successfully scanned the dirac states of several adjacent atoms without disturbing the order of the particle/anti-particle relationship.

The quarks as fundamental constituents of matter are considered physical objects gifted with two spins: S3 (external) and I3 (internal). As Fermi-like particles, they must obey the Dirac equation of motion. For a spinning particle in its rest frame, the Dirac equation offers four solutions describing the following physical states:

1. E1 =+m0c2; Sz = +η/2. 2. E2 =+m0c2; Sz = −η/2.
3. E3 = −m0c2; Sz = −η/2. 4. E4 = −m0c2; Sz = +η/2,

where m0 is the rest mass of the particle and Sz the "z" component of the spin momentum.
These four Dirac solutions must fulfill the fundamental quantum relationship for the wave - particle duality:

± m0c2 = ± ω0 η , (1)

where the left - hand side that is the relativistic energy of the spinning particle in its rest frame describes the corpuscular behavior of the particle and the right - hand side the wavelike one.

If now, ω0 in equation (1) is considered as the spin angular velocity [1] of the particle, then the right - hand side of this equation may be regarded as another relativistic expression for the rest energy. This assumption seems to be correct, because the invariance of the relativistic space-time interval ds2 = c2d t2 – dr2 to such a spin motion ω0 of the particle (spin isotropy) leads to the angular (spin) momentum Sz = m0 |(x.dy/dt-y.dx/dt)| = η/2, for all structureless elementary particles irrespective of their rest mass values.[2,3]
If this is so, then the signs of the mass values ± m0 occurring in the Dirac solutions might be related to the rotation directions of ω ± 0 (spinning).

[digital_blue]

Well you learn somehthing new everyday.... er... sort of.

db

[vector40]

I tuned out when I saw an omega... , calculus is following me home.

I'm going to save this for a block of time when I'm really switched-on and mathy. Great post, Rom.

[Romstar]

I tuned out when I saw an omega... , calculus is following me home.

I'm going to save this for a block of time when I'm really switched-on and mathy. Great post, Rom.

Calculus is following you home. I laughed like crazy when I saw that.

If you want to get really switched on, keep these two things in mind.

1. This is the fundamental material to understand for what COULD possibly be transporter technology. Now, some people have declared that it can't be done, but that's what they said about Dirac states as well.
Also, this material can help you understand a phenomenon known as quantum entanglement. A "feature" which may be able to provide instant communication between to distant points in space. By instant, I mean instant!

2. Quantum mechanics and space/time distortion are the fundamental underpinnings of what could develop into FTL technology. Although you need to have some work in electromagnetic field mechanics as well. The basis is still the same.

Oh, and coffee, lots and lots of coffee. Try NOT to use alcohol when working with any of this stuff. If you do have a revelation, you won't remember how you arrived at that conclusion, and you will most likely spend the rest of your life trying to figure out what was so easy to understand while you were in that drunken stupor.

Its the nature of discovery I suppose. A flash of insight that takes a lifetime to explain.

Oh, and what I posted is obviously NOT a complete discussion on the topic. I'm long winded, like now, but that would most likely take forever to do.

I promise, there won't be many posts like that last one. Honest.
Romstar

[digital_blue]

Actually, Rom, I like those posts, so don't take them away. As I type this I still have this link sitting in another instance of my browser:

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html

So, you see, I do learn stuff.

db

[Romstar]

Heh,

Good stuff. I forgot about Schrodinger saying that about the cat.

"I wish I had never met that cat." Makes you wonder if Mr. Schrodinger was drinking the night he came up with that little idea doesn't it?

Oh, and if your head starts to hurt with this stuff, walk away for a while. If you thought a philosophical discussion about the nature of the universe was bad, these guys are trying to prove or disprove the existance of god as a mathematical equation.

That's why I liked Dirac's work so much. He was a bit more general, even if he was a lot more mathematical. http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/171_97.html

Have fun if you can, the nature of the universe is more interesting than you can first imagine.

Romstar

[vector40]

Some quantum humor to lighten your load.

"Wanted: Schrodinger's cat. Dead or Alive."

*

WK Heisenberg is driving down the Autobahn when a cop pulls him over. He approaches the window and asks, "Do you know how fast you were going?"

"No," Heisenberg replies, "but I know exactly where I am."

[Dent]

I'm more of a conceputal physicist than a mathematical one, so I honestly don't understand about 40% of what you were talking about....

Let's simplify it down to basic logic:


1. A quark(photon, packet of light, ect) can have 2 distinct spins.

2. There are 2 seperate test for spin which are either positive or negative.

3. You can only test the particle with 1 test at a time.

4. The only way to test for spin involves altering the particle so it's original spin is unknown and lost.

5. Getting a negative on one test does not mean there is a positive on the other test, as your testing vs. actual spin is off by an offset.(usually this is the part about angles, how your testing at a 45 degree offset from the actual spins)


Those are the basics as I see it.

Logically, if you put the wrong test on the particle, then you lose the oppertunity to test for the second spin. So you only get 1 test per particle, and if you guess wrong, you can't accuratly describe the spin on that particle.


So one of those rules has to be broken in order for quantom cryptography to be broken.

Could you please explain in logical coceptual terms which one of those laws is broken in your view and how that is so.

Thanks.

[tarustwins]

uggg, only been here a few weeks, and already I have created a monster.......

[digital_blue]

I think this monster was created 130 posts ago or so. 9 pages, OMG.

db

[tarustwins]

Ok, if I am visualizing this correctly, the simple meaning is that a lock which changes it's key instantly is unbreakable... Well I don't need to break any laws of physics to get through the lock. If there is a key, there is a way in. Take a look at a code hopping car alarm. Aside from all the basic flaws of a radio transmitter, all one would need is to have a radio transmitter, know the frequency, know where the code starts, and where the code stops.
By all accounts it is unbreakable, in marketing terms. A car theif would not know how to get in. Until the theif figures out how to run a "brute force" attack on it. Run a transmitter on the frequency that the car alarm recieves at, and spew codes at it. Eventually you will hit the right code. In a sense, the same would apply to a quantum lock.

It all goes back to what myself and plenty of others here have said before. No lock is unpickable.

[NKT]

tarustwins,
the answer to the radio fob brute force attack is two-fold, or even three-fold.

One is to use a hash envelope around the entire code. If the hash fails, it gets ignored. Keep this hash function secret, or use a commercial or open-source one. As long as it isn't broken, and the code changes at least one bit each time, you are still secure.

Second is to use a psuedo-random number that changes each time as a rolling code, which is discarded after each use, to prevent replay attacks. Make this bigger than can be run through in a year at the max data rate of your transmitters. Start at a random point for each transmitter, or use a different random-function generator for each. Tie it into something human, and random, like switch bounce or exact time of key-press, if possible.

Third is to make the transmitter low powered, or frequency hopping, by changing the frequencies according to a synced clock at both ends, for a low probability of intercept.

That, my friend, is state of the art, and secure. There is one way around it, but it is convoluted, works about once, and still won't let you start the car!
---
In other news, I thought of a great trick - put a pressure switch at the back of the lock, just out of reach of the key. Wire this to the silent alarm, and then anyone trying to pick the lock is going to get caught at the lock, when the police turn out three minutes later. The only flaw is that the cops rarely turn out when there is a risk they will meet genuine criminals! I would say "Put a shocker in there" but then the cops would turn out, since they listen to the crims complaints, and know where you live!

[Romstar]

Ladies and gentlemen...

Please get ready to see Romstar fall on his face. (Or something similar to that)

It's been a long time since I really looked at this stuff, but I know they figured out a way to measure the four distinct dirac states. It was one of the more serious debates concerning this issue. As I said, very much like Schrodinger's cat.

Schrodinger's cat presents an interesting dilema in that it argues between practicality and possibility. The cat IS both alive and dead because the possibility exists. At any time when you impose actuality onto possibility, you change the states, but, what if it were possible to see all possibilities at the same time? Would the cat be alive, dead or some state in between? The space/time functions begin to play a serious role in what was originally a question of physical states.

The same issue arises when we begin to read the quantum properties of atomic structures. Or the dirac states. The orginal supposition was as you had indicated. If you measured wrong, you changed the quantum state, and therefore could not go back and try again.

By using inferometer testing, you can measure the quantum states of a particle without actually affecting the particle. Thereby being able to read all the dirac states at the same time.

It's the mecanism that I can't define at the moment, because to be quite honest I can't bloody wll remember how it works. Quantum entanglement becomes a very important issue in measuring these states and thus introduces another aspect into the equation. Add in again the additional equations from special relativity, and Dirac's delta function begins to have issues.

Einstein postulated not only multiple dimensions, but the ability to interact in those dimensions and despite what would appear to be the common wisdom, Einstein also stated the possibility of FTL effects. Certain particles seem to always exhibit these characteristics.

Also bear in mind that much of what we are discussing here is based on work that is now some 70+ years old. Movements in quantum field, wave, and matrix mechanics have rendered many classical observations obsolete, while reinforcing others.

Oh, and if you want to give yourself a real headache, start looking at string theory.

The following are some papers that you can read concerning the issue until I can find the stuff I have on the matter.

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/ful ... %2F9607021

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/ful ... %2F0307025

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/grierlab/dyn ... nsep4b.pdf

Give me a bit of time to find my old papers and I will give you some examples.

Romstar