|
To Protect Itself From U.S. Hostility Australia Decides To Buy U.S. Submarines
Yesterday the U.S., the UK and Australia announced that the latter one will buy nuclear powered submarines to do the U.S.' bidding against China:
Australia's next submarine fleet will be nuclear-powered under an audacious plan that will see a controversial $90 billion program to build up to 12 French-designed submarines scrapped.
The ABC understands Australia will use American and British technology to configure its next submarine fleet in a bid to replace its existing Collins class subs with a boat more suitable to the deteriorating strategic environment.
This is a huge but short term win for the U.S. with an also-ran booby price for Britain and a strategic loss of sovereignty and budget control for Australia.
It is another U.S. slap into the face of France and the European Union. The deal will piss off New Zealand, Indonesia and of course China. It will upset the international nuclear non proliferation regime and may lead to the further military nuclearization of South Korea and Japan.
Australia currently has 6 Collins class submarines. These are diesel driven boats based on Swedish designs but partially build in Australia. These boats are relatively slow and have a medium range and endurance. They were built between 1990 and 2003 and are mostly for defensive use. There were lots of trouble during the building of the boats as Australia lacks the technical capabilities and industrial depth to make such complicate products. The operational history of boats is also rather mixed with several scandals following each other. The boats are supposed to be upgraded to be in use for another decade.
In the 2010s Australia began to look for a new generation of submarines. After a long discussion it decided to stick to conventionally powered boats. The new subs were again to be build in Australia after a foreign design.
Germany, Japan and France were asked for proposals. The French state owned ship builder Naval Group (DCNS) won the race for 12 new boats and the €50 billion contract. Ironically the French conventionally driven Shortfin Barracuda design France offered is based on its own nuclear driven Barracuda class design. For Australia France had therefore to design a conventional power plant for a submarine that was originally designed, as all French subs are, to run on a nuclear reactor with low enriched uranium (LEU). It was quite obvious that this unusual conversion would run into difficulties and time delays.
Back in June Peter Lee, aka Chinahand, wrote about the delayed program:
The program is officially “troubled” and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison held a confab with French president Macron to try to get the project back on track.
Although the contract was signed in 2016, construction hasn’t begun yet, and the first submarine under the program won’t be launched for another decade. At least.
This does not fit well with the Australian navy’s declared ambition to fling its armed might against a PRC invasion of Taiwan that might happen in the next few years, so there’s all sorts of flailing go on, including talk of spending a few billion dollars to upgrade the current Collins class fleet of submarines as a stopgap, or even rush-procuring some German subs.
There’s also some talk of canceling, threatening to cancel, and/or modifying the attack submarine contract to do better. And maybe steer the project toward Germany or back to America’s choice, Japan.
Well – it turns out that 'America's choice' builder for Australia's submarines was not Japan but the U.S. itself.
We now learn that talks about ditching the contract with French in favor of U.S. build nuclear driven boats already started in April 2020 and were finalized during a U.S., Australian, British summit in early June 2021. This was before Prime Minister Scott Morrison met with the French President Macron to get the French-Australian project back on track!
What the PM didn't tell Macron over that long dinner in Paris — and perhaps why the French President might be particularly miffed — is that Morrison had, just a day or so before, already reached an informal agreement with United States President Joe Biden and British PM Boris Johnson for an extension of a nuclear technology sharing agreement.
This revelation brings a new complexion to the tripartite meeting in Carbis Bay in Cornwall on June 12 between the two PMs and the US President.
…
The ABC understands the federal government began exploring the nuclear-powered submarine option about 18 months ago when Linda Reynolds was still defence minister.
Moreover on August 30 the French and Australian Foreign and Defense Ministers had met and issued a common declaration on bilateral cooperation in a number of policy fields. This included defense cooperation:
Both sides committed to deepen defence industry cooperation and enhance their capability edge in the region. Ministers underlined the importance of the Future Submarine program. They agreed to strengthen military scientific research cooperation through a strategic partnership between the Defence Science and Technology Group and the Directorate General for Armaments.
Just sixteen days later France learned that it lost a huge defense contract due a 180 degree turn around by its Australian 'partner'. It is no wonder than that the French are fuming:
The French government has hit out Australia's decision to tear up a submarine deal with France worth more than €50 billion to instead acquire American-made nuclear-powered submarines.
"It's a stab in the back. We had established a trusting relationship with Australia, and this trust was betrayed," French Foreign Affairs Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said in a Franceinfo interview Thursday morning. Le Drian added he was "angry and very bitter about this break up," adding that he had spoken to his Australian counterpart days ago and received no serious indication of the move.
Under a deal announced Wednesday by U.S. President Joe Biden, Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. will form a new alliance to be known as AUKUS, which will see the three countries share advanced technologies with one another. As part of the new pact, Canberra will abandon its submarine deal with France.
The French, correctly, blame the U.S. for this decision:
In a statement released before the interview, Le Drian and Armed Forces Minister Florence Parly said: “This decision is contrary to the letter and spirit of the cooperation that prevailed between France and Australia."
The statement continued: "The American choice to push aside an ally and European partner like France from a structuring partnership with Australia, at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges in the Indo-Pacific region … shows a lack of consistency France can only note and regret."
The French ambassador to the U.S. was a bit more subtle with this zinger:
Philippe Etienne @Ph_Etienne – 2:43 UTC · Sep 16, 2021
Interestingly, exactly 240 years ago the French Navy defeated the British Navy in Chesapeake Bay, paving the way for the victory at Yorktown and the independence of the United States.
There are some military reasons to prefer nuclear submarines over diesel driven ones if one plans to lay siege on a foreign coast far away from ones own one. Nuclear submarines (SSN) are faster and can stay on station much longer than diesel driven boats (SSK).
bigger
But there are also many negative issues with nuclear boats. They are larger and more expensive than conventional ones. The cost nearly 50% more. They also require dedicated infrastructure and very specialized nuclear training for the crews. Australia has neither nor can it supply the necessary fuel for the nuclear reactors.
The price for the new submarines Australia will have to pay will be much higher that for the French ones. Some $3 billion have already been sunk into the French contract. France will rightfully demand additional compensation for cancelling it. The new contract with the U.S. or UK will cost more than the French one but will only include 8 instead of 12 boats. As three boats are needed to keep one at sea (while the other two are training or in refit), the actual patrolling capacity for Australia's navy will sink from 4 to 2-3 concurrent submarines at sea.
The much higher price of the fewer more complicate boats will upset Australia's defense budget for decades to come.
If going to nuclear propulsion were Australia's sole reason for changing the horse it could have stuck to the original French Barracuda design. This has the advantage of using low enriched uranium which is commercially available. There would be no Australian dependency on France for new fuel supplies. The British and U.S. boats use nuclear reactors with highly enriched uranium (HEU >60%). As Australia now decided to buy those boats it will forever be dependent on those suppliers.
The non-proliferation crowd and the IAEA will be up in arms over the deal. How much supervision will there be over the HEU? Who will have access to it?
Nuclear driven submarines are also perceived as offensive weapons, not as reasonable defensive ones. There are more countries on this map than just China.
bigger
That Australia, with just 25 million inhabitants, is buying nuclear driven attack subs will not be welcome by its ten times larger northern neighbor Indonesia. Other neighboring countries, like New Zealand, reject any use of nuclear fuel and will not allow ships or boats using it into their harbors.
The new contract will also upset the Australian plans for manufacturing the boats on its own soil. While the French design was ready to start the actual building phase at the beginning of next year the whole submarine project will now go into a new 18 month long definition phase after which actual contracts will have to be negotiated and signed. Meanwhile the hundreds of Australian engineers who moved to France to help with the design and specialists who were hired by Naval Group in Australia will have to be cared for. Australia does not have many people with such knowledge. What are they going to do until the new project actually starts?
The UK will offer Australia to buy British made Astute class submarines while the U.S. is likely to offer the smaller version of its Virginia class submarines. As both countries have active production lines for these it will not make any economic sense to build more than some small parts for these in Australia itself. The U.S. will use all pressure that is necessary to make sure that its offer will win the race. A hint of that is that Australia also announced that it will acquire long-range US Tomahawk missiles to be used with the subs.
The first of the French boats for Australia was expected to be ready in the early 2030s. There will now be a long delay of perhaps a decade for Australia to get new boats.
Its current Collins class will require more than an ordinary refit to be sustained that long. That is going to be expensive. The Germans may want to jump into that gap by offering their Type 214 submarines with hydrogen driven propulsion. While these boats are much smaller they offer a long endurance, can be supplied reasonably fast and come for a much cheaper price than the nuclear driven ones.
Altogether I do not see any advantage for Australia in this move.
What then is the reason to take that step?
It is called blackmail.
China is by far Australia's largest trading partner. U.S. and Australian 'strategist' claim that the submarines are need to protect Australia's maritime trade routes with its largest trading partner … from China. That makes, as this sketch provides, zero sense.
The only reason Australia has turned politically and militarily against China is U.S. blackmail. Two years ago the U.S. 'realist' political scientist John Mearsheimer came to Australia to explained to Australians (vid see at 33min) how that works.
As Caitlin Johnstone summarizes:
“Now some people say there’s an alternative: you can go with China,” said Mearsheimer. “Right you have a choice here: you can go with China rather the United States. There’s two things I’ll say about that. Number one, if you go with China you want to understand you are our enemy. You are then deciding to become an enemy of the United States. Because again, we’re talking about an intense security competition.”
“You’re either with us or against us,” he continued. “And if you’re trading extensively with China, and you’re friendly with China, you’re undermining the United States in this security competition. You’re feeding the beast, from our perspective. And that is not going to make us happy. And when we are not happy you do not want to underestimate how nasty we can be. Just ask Fidel Castro.”
Nervous laughter from the Australian think tank audience punctuated Mearsheimer’s more incendiary observations. The CIA is known to have made numerous attempts to assassinate Castro.
So there you have it. Australia is not aligned with the US to protect itself from China. Australia is aligned with the US to protect itself from the US.
Joe Biden may have forgotten the name of the Australian Prime Minister. But Scott Morrison knows who he is expected to work for. In 1975 the U.S. and the UK launched a coup against the Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam who was moving his country towards independence. Few in the U.S. will remember that but Australian politicians do. Their country has since always done as it was told to do.
And that is what all the above is about.
Quantum physics is an interesting beast. Few who are well-trained in classical physics are comfortable with it. They often try to understand it as some kind of natural outgrowth of more familiar physics but that sets them up for incomprehension. At more sophisticated levels you have the physicists thinking “The math says this is what is supposed to happen but I don’t see it. The particle is supposed to be both a wave and a particle. The electron is supposed to be in many places at once. The cat is supposed to be both dead and alive at the same time.” This is what gets quantum physics labeled as “spooky physics”.
Consider the ancient classical physics of Aristotle, Euclid, and Archimedes. This was relatively direct and linear thinking. Then along comes Newton, Leibnitz, and Seki to add a dynamic aspect to physics with their various versions of calculus. This required a paradigm shift to effectively understand and exploit. That isn’t to say that Aristotle couldn’t comprehend things like rates of change, but that he couldn’t formalize it. Of course, people of his era didn’t really need physical models that encompassed such things, so it is no surprise and certainly no criticism of the ancient proto-physicists.
Then along comes Einstein with his relativity. Again physics thinking must do a paradigm shift to keep up.
If we can think if these paradigm shifts as turning our attention 90 degrees perpendicular to what we previously understood about the world, then we have gone from linear thinking with the ancient philosophers, to two dimensional thinking with Newton & Co., to three dimensional thinking about physics with Einstein. So what happens when the next paradigm shift comes along? Which dimension is perpendicular to the three physical ones we are all so familiar with? How can we conceptually model this paradigm shift?
And that is an oversimplification of the problem with understanding quantum physics. The cognitive step into that realm is bigger than any of the preceding paradigm shifts that have been required to date to stay at the bleeding edge of human cognition. While there are plenty of people who can properly arrange the mathematical symbols and turn the computational crank to get solutions to quantum physics problems, most who are deeply rooted in classical physics are left intensely troubled by the implications of that mathematical modelling when applied to the natural world around them. Such efforts leave the ground not seeming so solid as we are accustomed to thinking and the “now” more ephemeral than we would like it to be. Classical physicists had to give up their gods to truly embrace their field of study, but that is a trivial sacrifice compared with what is required to really fully grasp quantum physics. To acknowledge that one’s physical self, the very anchor point of one’s ego and identity, is nought but a probabilistic wave function, albeit an exquisitely complex one (wink, wink), is a bit much for most people.
That is all a lead-in to some points relevant to the topic of this thread that I would like to make. First is that you need to master a great deal of very difficult math to even get to the starting point of grasping quantum physics (lysergic acid can be a shortcut, but just try and hold onto that understanding as you return from your trip. Good luck with that!) I am not talking that one needs to know how to punch a formula into a calculator, but rather one must fully understand how those formulae model some aspects of the natural world. The quantum nature of the world is not intuitive or readily visible. One cannot learn about it through “hands on experience” or classroom manipulatives for small-forebrain students.
So which culture in the world truly prizes math competence these days? Certainly not the US or EU, so keep guessing if either of those were your first choice. It would be more accurate to say that the US and EU have become radically antipathetic to math over the last several decades. Math is simply incompatible with social equity.
Next you need an academic environment that is ready, if not eager, to step beyond hidebound orthodoxy. One may mistakenly assume that western university campuses, with their deliberate efforts to dismantle their imaginary demons of “white male supremacy”, would be the ideal environments for doctrine to be challenged. Unfortunately, their crusade against something that only exists in their own imaginations has necessitated making over the university environments into intellectual “safe spaces” where their heartfelt dogmas cannot be disputed. Western universities have thus transformed themselves into factories for hidebound orthodoxy. They will not be producing groundbreaking thinkers.
China, on the other hand, with hundreds of new universities staffed with enthusiastic young faculties charged up with excitement for the possibilities of science and immersed in a society where math skills are held in high esteem… well, you can guess where that is going.
China is innovating, even as we discuss right now, things that even technically competent individuals such as Gordog believe to be impossible. Naturally, once the poster sees how the impossible was accomplished he will no longer assert that it was impossible, but that is how innovation often proceeds.
Consider detecting submerged submarines using lasers. Impossible, right? The water will disperse the beam, rendering it incoherent. Any of the emitted photons that somehow find their way back to a detector after bouncing off the hull of a submarine will have the information of that collision buried by numerous subsequent collisions with water molecules, atmosphere molecules, fish, and perhaps mermaids.
But the Chinese are not considering using traditional LIDAR to search for submarines, but rather detectors employing quantum entangled photons. These “spooky physics” devices never have to see any of the photons they emit again in order for them to detect something those photons interacted with. Like magic? Maybe… depends upon the limits of one’s understanding of physics how magical it seems.
“But such a detector would have to be able to produce a massive stream of quantum entangled photons! That’s impossible!”
There you go again. Just because you cannot imagine something, like propulsive reentry of SpaceX’ Starship spacecraft, doesn’t mean it cannot be done.
Oh, and about the CIA and quantum encryption, do keep in mind that the CIA is staffed with Harvard frat bois who majored in humanities or business because they had neither the patience nor intellect for math. Don’t put much stock in the opinions of a bunch of clowns who cannot even pin down where their own anxiety comes from (“generalized anxiety disorder”? Really? How much more weak-minded can someone be?) and who have “impostor syndrome” from getting participation trophies for all they do.
In any case, before Australia has their nuke subs, China will have their quantum entangled LIDAR satellites in orbit.
Posted by: William Gruff | Sep 18 2021 17:46 utc | 227
Well, that is a fairly coherent comment by Gruff @ 227.
The following comment is meant in the spirit of discussion rather than confrontation.
It’s true that quantum physics is difficult to understand. I had a great friend years ago who was a theoretical physicist and professor emeritus at a renowned east coast university. He would sometimes resort to the mild arrogance of theoretical physicists, which profession is rightfully placed at the top of the pecking order of hard sciences.
A typical remark would be along the lines of , ‘well, as an engineer, you don’t need to understand concepts like uncertainty.’
Fair enough. But I still say, even with my limited understanding of ‘modern’ physics, that it has contributed almost nothing of any real value. Mostly quantum science is applied to further our understanding of cosmology, at which I think they are doing a TERRIBLE job. They have explained next to nothing, as far as I am concerned, and the story is constantly shifting.
This quantum physics introductory excerpt from Serway’s Physics for Scientists and Engineers is helpful in setting a baseline:
In Chapter 39, we discussed that Newtonian mechanics must be replaced by Einstein’s special theory of relativity when dealing with particle speeds comparable to the speed of light.
As the 20th century progressed, many experimental and theoretical problems were resolved by the special theory of relativity. For many other problems, however, neither relativity nor classical physics could provide a theoretical answer.
Attempts to apply the laws of classical physics to explain the behavior of matter on the atomic scale were consistently
unsuccessful. For example, the emission of discrete wavelengths of light from atoms in a high-temperature gas could not be explained within the framework of classical physics.
As physicists sought new ways to solve these puzzles, another revolution took place in physics between 1900 and 1930. A new theory called quantum mechanics was highly successful in explaining the behavior of particles of microscopic size.
Like the special theory of relativity, the quantum theory requires a modification of our ideas concerning the physical world.
Notice that special relativity is only important when dealing with high particle speeds. This includes even orbital speeds, which are actually a tiny fraction of the speed of light…but still enough to disrupt things when ACCURACY is important.
I had mentioned the satnav systems [GPS, Glonass, Beidou etc], which carry atomic clocks that are essential to navigation calculations.
[Btw, timekeeping has long been crucial to navigation. The advent of the marine chronometer revolutionized ocean navigation in the mid-eighteenth century. A fascinating story of the self-taught clockmaker, John Harrison, who developed the first such workable instrument, as a response to the Longitude Prize established by Parliament. Latitude could be quite acurately determined in this era by means of celestial navigation, but Longitude could only be calculated by knowing the TIME of day at the prime meridian, which passed through Greenwich. An excellent TV movie of this story is available on youtube.]
Anyway, back to the atomic clocks on board sats. The speed of the sat in its ~20,000 km high orbit is high enough that the clock onboard will tick 7 microseconds slower per day. This is due to special relativity.
At the same time its distance from the earth’s gravity mass will speed up the clock by 45 microseconds. This is due to general relativity. Thus, the clocks need to be slowed by 38 microseconds per day, otherwise a position error of over 10 km will result at the end of the day!
That is the only significant real-world engineering application I can think of where modern physics is essential.
Now back to Serway. Let’s remember that ‘quantum’ is a reference to the fact that an atom is comprised of smaller particles or ‘quanta.’
In Chapter 41, we introduced some basic concepts and techniques used in quantum mechanics along with their applications to various one-dimensional systems. In this chapter, we apply quantum mechanics to atomic systems.
A large portion of the chapter is focused on the application of quantum mechanics to the study of the hydrogen atom. Understanding
the hydrogen atom, the simplest atomic system, is important for several reasons:
• The hydrogen atom is the only atomic system that can be solved exactly.
• Much of what was learned in the 20th century about the hydrogen atom, with its single electron, can be extended to such single-electron ions as He1 and Li21.
• The hydrogen atom is an ideal system for performing precise tests of theory against experiment and for improving our overall understanding of atomic structure.
So there you have it. Only the simplest atom can be solved EXACTLY using the quantum math.
• The quantum numbers that are used to characterize the allowed states of hydrogen can also be used to investigate more complex atoms, and such a description enables us to understand the periodic table of the elements. This understanding is one of the greatest triumphs of quantum mechanics.
In other words they are making educated guesses!
As for China ‘harnessing’ quantum entanglement to locate submarines with satellites…well, I will believe that when they first bring out a REAL quantum ‘computer’ for a start.
I never said it is impossible, like Gruff is ascribing incorrectly to my comments. I merely pointed out some of the obvious challenges, which are indeed HUGE, if not overwhelming.
For instance, even if this quantum entanglement scheme does work, you still have the massive challenge of SCANNING the absolutely HUGE area of the world ocean, or at least parts thereof. That problem does not go away, even if Gruff turns out to be correct about the quantum breakthrough.
I hope somebody does figure out how to put quantum physics to some use. But until they do, it shows that it is not a fully formed theory. Because the definition of a ‘theory’ in science is that its math can be used to predict behavior. Quantum does that precisely only in a very limited way, as I’ve already shown.
PS: as for ‘reentry’ of that ‘starship’ contraption, I will be writing about that in some detail. This is stuff that is not ‘spooky’ science, just well-known aerodynamics and thermodynamics.
Btw Gruff, since you are following the Musk clownshow, when can we expect that ‘orbital’ launch, lol? 😸
Posted by: Gordog | Sep 18 2021 19:39 utc | 229
I am just a piano player “add value” lurker and don’t have a side in this way OT dust up
”
HEFEI, Sept. 18 (Xinhua) — With a height of about one meter and weight of less than 100 kg, a miniaturized quantum satellite ground station caught the eyes of audiences at the 2021 Quantum Industry Conference held Saturday in Hefei, capital of east China’s Anhui Province.
“Such ground station is light and portable, and can be installed within 12 hours, allowing users in remote areas to use quantum communication conveniently,” said Zhou Lei, project director of quantum in QuantumCTek Co., Ltd., a leading quantum company based in Anhui.
The company also displayed a piece of quantum key distribution equipment about the same size as a laptop, which can greatly reduce the cost of quantum network building and maintenance.
In recent years, China has achieved a series of breakthroughs in quantum technology, including the world’s first quantum satellite, a 2,000-km quantum communication line between Beijing and Shanghai, and the world’s first optical quantum computing machine prototype.
“With the active participation of leading enterprises and the guidance of the government, an industrial chain that covers the equipment, network, safety and standards of quantum communication has been basically formed in China,” said Pan Jianwei, a renowned quantum scientist from the University of Science and Technology of China, at the conference.
Hefei, a hub for China’s quantum technology, is home to over 20 quantum technology enterprises and achieved an output value of some 430 million yuan (about 66.5 million U.S. dollars) in 2020.
“The quantum information technology is to be further integrated, convenient and low-cost, allowing more people to have access to it,” said Zhou of QuantumCTek.
China Telecom Quantum Technology Co., Ltd. has tried out the quantum encryption calls in 15 provinces since June and has garnered some 10,000 users, said Wang Jian, manager of the research and development department of the company.
“The users can have secure calls and messages encrypted with quantum keys after inserting a SIM card and installing a related app, which can ensure information security,” said Wang.
Besides quantum communication, quantum precision measurement and quantum computation have also seen great breakthroughs in industrial applications.
Produced by CIQTEK Co., Ltd., a quantum precision measurement instrument called quantum diamond atomic force microscope can achieve nanoscale high spatial resolution and single spin ultra-high detection sensitivity, which has been applied to study the magnetic and superconducting materials.
“Our products have been used in fields including oil exploration, life sciences and power grids. Since the founding of our company five years ago, the output value has almost doubled every year and the revenue was over 100 million yuan last year,” said He Yu, president of CIQTEK, a manufacturer and provider of quantum precision measurement products.
Origin Quantum, a startup focusing on quantum computers and related technologies, launched OriginQ Cloud, a full stack quantum computing service platform on the conference, which can provide quantum computing, simulation training, quantum application development and other services for quantum computing developers and enthusiasts.
“Many of our works are original research, and we are exploring the future commercial model to combine quantum computation with industries including finance, biological medicine and space,” said Zhang Hui, general manager of Origin Quantum.
”
Posted by: psychohistorian | Sep 19 2021 6:18 utc | 242
Okay, I have to jump in again because some people who obviously don’t know anything about physics just won’t let go of their layman misconceptions that are shaped by our very goofy an utterly worthless pop-sci media.
No, computers don’t ‘use’ quantum tunneling, anymore than a toaster uses quantum physics—which in fact it does, because the full effect of the toaster, radiating both particles and waves is only explained by quantum physics. How Quantum Physics Starts With Your Toaster
Of course this article is really useless gibberish, written by a layman that doesn’t actually know any science…even though the basic idea is correct: that James Clerk Maxwell’s classical electromagnetic theory is incomplete in fully describing even a toaster, while quantum theory does.
It doesn’t mean you have to USE quantum physics to build a toaster.
It’s the exact same thing with semiconductors and quantum tunneling.
Look folks, you don’t actually learn anything about science from the silly popular media, unless you already have a strong physics background. And then you see that it is mostly a lot of blather, with a tiny kernel of truth, at best.
I have quoted here some snippets from Serway’s Physics for Scientists and Engineers. This is a dense text of over 1,600 pages. The section on Modern Physics, which covers quantum etc is 300 pages and six full chapters. And this is merely an introduction to the subject, so that the engineer and scientist can have a base understanding.
The previous 1,200 pages and 38 chapters deal thoroughly with classical physics, which you first have to understand BEFORE you can have a hope of jumping into the quantum physics section at the end of the book.
I was tempted this morning, looking over the stubborn comments here, to put together a long explanatory piece, with insightful excerpts from Serway that would be of help to many of you.
But I’m not going to bother, because I think it’s a waste of time. I have already done a few such comments here, to absolutely no avail.
I have already talked also about how actual engineering works. Even in very complex things like aircraft and spacecraft, mostly it is done by trial and error. Even though we now have sophisticated math modeling tools, but they are APPROXIMATIONS.
Quantum physics is in large part fairly straightforward, in that it explains the subatomic nature of matter and the forces at work that hold the atom together. But it also has a far more ESOTERIC aspect, with things like uncertainty, being in two places at once etc. This is the interesting part where people are trying to come up with clever ways of making use of these weird phenomena.
This is where the guesswork comes in.
The quantum tunneling in a semiconductor for instance is based on a TINY probability of an electron passing through a hole that it shouldn’t pass through, based on classical physics.
But this isn’t SOLVED with quantum physics math. It is solved by taking account of this greater leakage, and ENGINEERING error-correction methods that are used anyway, since ALL semiconductors are somewhat unpredictable.
The quantum tunneling only becomes a factor at very tiny scales of something like 7 nanometers. And again, this is addressed by perfectly standard engineering.
We do not yet have a single device that relies HEAVILY on some of these esoteric quantum effects. Not a quantum computer, not a gamma-ray laser, both of which have been works in progress for decades. Nothing.
We have had quantum cryptogrpahy for quite a while, and yes this is a real application, albeit with some serious drawbacks. Which is why it is not in wide use.
In effect, the quantum part is used for the key distribution, not the actual encryption.
The main drawback of quantum key distribution is that it usually relies on having an authenticated classical channel of communications.
So you have to have the old tech anyway. Like having a horse pulling a sputtering, underpowered car. What’s the point? And…
In theory, quantum cryptography seems to be a successful turning point in the information security sector.
However, no cryptographic method can ever be absolutely secure.[84] In practice, quantum cryptography is only conditionally secure, dependent on a key set of assumptions.[85]
Look folks, the fact is that popular magazines and such are in the business of generating clicks or selling copies. Serious scientists are of course working all the time on various kinds of whizbang projects. And naturally when they come up with something, they like to get the acclamation, the financial rewards etc.
Mostly this amounts to an endless merry-go-round that never actually changes anything.
For five thousand years the horse and the sail were the engines of human civilization. Even one hundred years ago, when quantum physics was already being formulated, you had lots of residential buildings in New York City that didn’t even have electricity. Half the population was rural, where there was no electricity or indoor plumbing at all. And the horse and sail were still around.
Then we got internal combustion engines, refrigeration, airplanes, the jet and rocket engine, and the solid-state transistor. All of these things have been refined over the decades by ENGINEERING, not by quantum physics.
The transistor, now miniaturized, has made it possible to carry around very small computers in our phones, all connected by wireless and wired networks, and making it possible to quickly access all kinds of information.
Most of which is COMPLETELY USELESS. You still need good old books on physics to actually LEARN something REAL.
Posted by: Gordog | Sep 20 2021 16:50 utc | 252
|
