The microblog: 2018.03.15 20:59:22

2018.03.15 20:59:22 (974374516246876161) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (974269322305703936):

If you understand the Faraday-cage example then you can't possibly believe that you're accurately characterizing my paper (let alone the holographic principle!). Let's focus on resolving the Faraday-cage dispute first.


2018.03.14 23:50:02 (974055080562429958) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (973883345800253440):

Let me get this straight. Are you claiming that Faraday cages have a security property guaranteed by the laws of physics? If so, what precisely do you claim that this security property is?

2018.03.15 13:59:56 (974268961650077697) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)":

Hi Daniel, I think it leaves an incorrect impression to say a Faraday cage merely scrambles information. They cancel EM waves, and I'm not aware of any fundamental limitation on that, especially if all you're trying to shield is which fiber-optic cable a photon travelled down. 1/

2018.03.15 14:00:28 (974269097394524161) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)", replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (974268961650077697):

I agree that a real-world implementation will not be perfect and leak some information to a sufficiently close and sensitive detector. But for any 1-epsilon of paranoia there is a 1-delta of conductor. 2/

2018.03.15 14:01:22 (974269322305703936) from "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)", replying to "Jonathan Oppenheim (@postquantum)" (974269097394524161):

You focus on the holographic principle but the HP has no implications for security. It is a conjecture that a theory of gravity is mathematically equivalent to a theory on its boundary (a CFT). Your argument = if I have a quantum computer that can simulate the universe then 3/