6 ms·

@pjc50 Thank you for your input, really appreciated. What you say is that proximity gives you more benefit than having antennas transmitting data 'wireless', ri

by X4 13y ago

@pjc50 Thank you for your input, really appreciated. What you say is that proximity gives you more benefit than having antennas transmitting data 'wireless', right? I agree with that and I don't, firstly because "Quantum Teleportation (QT)" is available soon enough for a broader audience than just Physicists [1] and such "directed antennas" positioned in the same proximity to the datacenter as the 10G links can result in equal or higher bandwidth. Otherwise it's an unfair comparison. Also QT is making rounds in the defense and aerospace industry now much more than ever, because they could use it to send data to satellites much faster than with earlier methods. Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but I'd be grateful, if you had a source for your argument. :) TL;DR: » If you're not in the same datacenter you're too slow; That applies to wireless and for cable. By the way, what's your job title, if I may ask? -- [1] http://qcmc2012.org/ http://qcmc2012.org/

Kell 13y ago
... Quantum teleportation as a mean of transmitting information ? You know that as of today, QT is completely unable of transmitting data... It transmits a quantum state instantly yes, but that "transmission" cannot in any way be used to transmit any form of data, it would be a severe breach of relativity theory. Look, it's the second sentence of the Wikipedia article on the subject : "Because it depends on classical communication, which can proceed no faster than the speed of light, it cannot be used for superluminal transport or communication of classical bits" [1]. And anyway, the Quantum Communication Measurement and Computing Conference, is not about QT, even if it is probably a discussed subject. The scope of that conference is : "Quantum Cryptography and Quantum Communications, Quantum Measurement and Quantum Metrology, Quantum Computing and Quantum Information Theory, Implementations of Quantum Information Processing and Quantum Simulations, Quantum Control, Foundations of Quantum Physics" [2]. So QT may serve as a way to allow really fast transmission of data, but for that, first physicist would have to completely reinvent physics. That's of course a possibility. But don't count on it as a "soon enough for a broader audience than just physicists" thing. We are decades away from such a breakthrough. And then, if that sort of breakthrough happens... gosh, that would probably change the face of the world in a much more important way than just a faster wireless data feed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation [2] http://qcmc2012.org/about-qcmc/ http://qcmc2012.org/about-qcmc/
- X4 13y ago
  » completely unable of transmitting data... Flat out wrong. Yes the references supplied were bad, I didn't bother looking deep enough for a good reference. I don't care if you believe that it's science fiction or comic science, it's there and the race to commercialization has already started. If you really care about what you say, then you should read this and stop being a naysayer: doi:10.1038/492022a
  - Kell 13y ago
    Oh, I'm happy to tell you that you should read a bit about the No-Communication Theorem. Here, this post explain it fairly well : http://lesswrong.com/lw/q2/spooky_action_at_a_distance_the_nocommunication/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q2/spooky_action_at_a_distance_the_n... Maybe that (non peer reviewed) author at nature should read it too. The wikipedia page for the no communication theorem is fine too. Or this technical article : http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0212023.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0212023.pdf
pjc50 13y ago
The other commentator has dealth with QT; it's not yet a really available commercial technology, and it's not even clear that it lets you send data outside of your light cone which might violate causality. I would like a cite for your bandwidth claim, but remember it's not bandwidth that matters - orders and market data are fairly small packets of data - but latency. The usual problem with radio systems is that you don't have a nice clean signal "edge" that you can recover, you need to apply some processing to the signal. That might be pure analog (heterodyne reciever) or A/D or pure digital (convolve to recover data from QAM). This processing delays the signal. Our approach is to do all the processing in an FPGA connected to a 10G line. This allows us to use various tricks to start sending the first byte of the trade before the final byte of the market data packet is recieved. It says "Principal Engineer" on my business cards; I'm a consultant for a small firm.
- X4 13y ago
  I never said that QT is a really available commercial technology. Look I wrote: >> … firstly because "Quantum Teleportation (QT)" is available soon enough for a broader audience than just Physicists … Look up: doi:10.1038/492022a if you don't believe in QT. Then I'm glad to see your arguments on that. >> I would like a cite for your bandwidth claim Here you go 10-Gbit/s vs 1-Tbit/s → doi:10.1038/nphoton.2012.138 if you need other details on encodings: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.2891v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.2891v2.pdf and http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0709.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0709.pdf You mention latency, I know about that and I was not sure if I should've mentioned it, or not, but decided not to. That's because I thought you would know from my writing that I know about latency pretty well.. However, you know that the topology of a system defines if, a system is as strong as it's weakest link. Because I don't know how the latency in the given wireless system is, I can tell you that. Oh man.. Can't I say anything on HN without having a scientific proof, or what? holy moly... What am I, everyone's slave? Do yourself a favor, just ask politely next time and I will do that, when time allows. But accusing somebody of being a bullshitter, without having any proof yourself, except that your work on HFT stuff is creating an "unfriendly" atmosphere. If being right matters more for you than being helpful, then that's your problem, but it doesn't help to improve the atmosphere in here. And sorry, if you feel attacked or something in any way, it's absolutely not my intention to do that.

by X4 13y ago

Kell 13y ago

... Quantum teleportation as a mean of transmitting information ? You know that as of today, QT is completely unable of transmitting data... It transmits a quantum state instantly yes, but that "transmission" cannot in any way be used to transmit any form of data, it would be a severe breach of relativity theory. Look, it's the second sentence of the Wikipedia article on the subject : "Because it depends on classical communication, which can proceed no faster than the speed of light, it cannot be used for superluminal transport or communication of classical bits" [1]. And anyway, the Quantum Communication Measurement and Computing Conference, is not about QT, even if it is probably a discussed subject. The scope of that conference is : "Quantum Cryptography and Quantum Communications, Quantum Measurement and Quantum Metrology, Quantum Computing and Quantum Information Theory, Implementations of Quantum Information Processing and Quantum Simulations, Quantum Control, Foundations of Quantum Physics" [2]. So QT may serve as a way to allow really fast transmission of data, but for that, first physicist would have to completely reinvent physics. That's of course a possibility. But don't count on it as a "soon enough for a broader audience than just physicists" thing. We are decades away from such a breakthrough. And then, if that sort of breakthrough happens... gosh, that would probably change the face of the world in a much more important way than just a faster wireless data feed. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation [2] http://qcmc2012.org/about-qcmc/ http://qcmc2012.org/about-qcmc/

X4 13y ago
» completely unable of transmitting data... Flat out wrong. Yes the references supplied were bad, I didn't bother looking deep enough for a good reference. I don't care if you believe that it's science fiction or comic science, it's there and the race to commercialization has already started. If you really care about what you say, then you should read this and stop being a naysayer: doi:10.1038/492022a
- Kell 13y ago
  Oh, I'm happy to tell you that you should read a bit about the No-Communication Theorem. Here, this post explain it fairly well : http://lesswrong.com/lw/q2/spooky_action_at_a_distance_the_nocommunication/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q2/spooky_action_at_a_distance_the_n... Maybe that (non peer reviewed) author at nature should read it too. The wikipedia page for the no communication theorem is fine too. Or this technical article : http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0212023.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0212023.pdf

pjc50 13y ago

The other commentator has dealth with QT; it's not yet a really available commercial technology, and it's not even clear that it lets you send data outside of your light cone which might violate causality. I would like a cite for your bandwidth claim, but remember it's not bandwidth that matters - orders and market data are fairly small packets of data - but latency. The usual problem with radio systems is that you don't have a nice clean signal "edge" that you can recover, you need to apply some processing to the signal. That might be pure analog (heterodyne reciever) or A/D or pure digital (convolve to recover data from QAM). This processing delays the signal. Our approach is to do all the processing in an FPGA connected to a 10G line. This allows us to use various tricks to start sending the first byte of the trade before the final byte of the market data packet is recieved. It says "Principal Engineer" on my business cards; I'm a consultant for a small firm.

X4 13y ago
I never said that QT is a really available commercial technology. Look I wrote: >> … firstly because "Quantum Teleportation (QT)" is available soon enough for a broader audience than just Physicists … Look up: doi:10.1038/492022a if you don't believe in QT. Then I'm glad to see your arguments on that. >> I would like a cite for your bandwidth claim Here you go 10-Gbit/s vs 1-Tbit/s → doi:10.1038/nphoton.2012.138 if you need other details on encodings: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.2891v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.2891v2.pdf and http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0709.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.0709.pdf You mention latency, I know about that and I was not sure if I should've mentioned it, or not, but decided not to. That's because I thought you would know from my writing that I know about latency pretty well.. However, you know that the topology of a system defines if, a system is as strong as it's weakest link. Because I don't know how the latency in the given wireless system is, I can tell you that. Oh man.. Can't I say anything on HN without having a scientific proof, or what? holy moly... What am I, everyone's slave? Do yourself a favor, just ask politely next time and I will do that, when time allows. But accusing somebody of being a bullshitter, without having any proof yourself, except that your work on HFT stuff is creating an "unfriendly" atmosphere. If being right matters more for you than being helpful, then that's your problem, but it doesn't help to improve the atmosphere in here. And sorry, if you feel attacked or something in any way, it's absolutely not my intention to do that.