A Chance to Change the World

Dear Wild Ducks: This update speaks from conviction and passion…

I have joined an exciting project that is defining the standards by which consumers and legitimate business use Bitcoin. Please consider joining me at the ground floor of a bold effort. In a way, we are trying to change the world. The reward for a success will be tangible.

If you have read this Blog in the past, then you know that I am keen on the gradually increasing adoption of Bitcoin to pay bills, and even as a universal currency. The problem with the big picture is that the growth of digital currency is tarnished by the large number of media reports describing loss, hacking, drug money, tax evasion and other crimes.

CRYPSA LogoIn fact, cash is far more popular with crooks then cryptocurrency, because it is less traceable. Bitcoin has compelling advantages for consumers and business, but the major banks and many big businesses hesitate to jump in with both feet, until they a sense that the market is ready. They want to see regulatory consensus, improved tools to monitor and deter hacking, simple transaction mechanisms built into smart phones–easy to configure and foolproof in practice.

Most importantly, Banks and their underwriters want to see the emergence of standards and practices that provide the same banking assurances demanded by consumers and anyone making a purchase, or anyone sending, saving, or loaning money. Cryptocurrency can do it better than credit cards, cash or any other banking vehicle. Much better, and without cost.

CRYPSA’s funding campaign is modest: We seek to raise $65,000 in two months. I don’t expect casual Blog readers to fund this dream. But you can still help:

Get the word out. Make some noise about our funding campaign.
Use the share tools on our campaign page. Refer friends & colleagues!

With CRYPSA founder, Manny Perez

The photo shows me with CRYPSA founder, Manny Perez. We very much appreciate your help in spreading the word on your social media pages. Link directly to our funding campaign: http://igg.me/at/crypsa. A sample post appears below. You needn’t use our photo. Personalize it. Use the words or images that suit you. Alternatively, ask me for an invitation to join Indiegogo, the campaign sponsor. Even without a contribution, we will list you on the campaign page as team member.

Become a CRYPSA advisor & sponsor


Sample Post:

Bitcoin is becoming much more than a geeky payment mechanism. But to earn mainstream acceptance, it needs a framework of standards & practices.

I am an advisor to CRYPSA, the Cryptocurrency Standards Association. You can also set the standards for new age currencies. Be a part of something that has never been done before. Consider becoming a member—or make a small donation to help defray startup costs. If you cannot contribute, simply spread the word!

Funding Page: http://igg.me/at/crypsa

CRYPSA Logo:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/117552513723600293242/117552513723600293242/posts/esF6zELD412?pid=6007807586108165314&oid=117552513723600293242

Join me: Bitcoin, wine, cheese, and a movie

There is an early November event on the east coast that is worth the travel time. I plan to drive from Boston to Queens NY for this one. If you live in Massachusetts or Connecticut and can handle a few hours conversation with the original Wild Duck, then drop me a line and plan on splitting the gas. (After all—this event is on me).

It’s no secret that I believe in the mission of the Cryptocurrency Standards Association (CRYPSA). To help the organization take wings, I am the acting Co-Chair for at least the next two years. So forgive me for for quoting verbatim from the official announcement…



business_mixer
The Cryptocurrency Standards Association is holding an open house and business networking event Wednesday Nov 5th from 5 to 9 PM.

Join us at LaGuardia Community College for wine, cheese and a showing of The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin.

The event is free, but space is limited. Click here for tickets. (Max: 3 tickets per email invite)

Wednesday November 5, 2014• Doors open at 5:00 PM
• Bitcoin Film: 6:20 ~ 8 PM
• Business mixer ends 9PM
LaGuardia Community College

LaGuardia Community College
(Bldg C, floor 7 in NYDesigns)
45-50 30th Street
Long Island City, NY 11101

CRYPSA and La Guardia Community College present an independent film. Meet entrepreneurs and founders of the Cryptocurrency Standards Association. Click here for information.  ▪  Ph: (718) 663-8463.

Keurig brews consumer discontent

Two years ago, as the K-Cup patent expired, the leader in single-serve coffee brewers introduced Vue, a slightly larger, coffee pod. If you haven’t heard of Vue, your not alone. The newer single-serve coffee packet never caught fire like Keurig’s original K-Cup. Just as with ink jet printers, the new pod and the brewers that accommodate them were Green Mountain’s strategy to reassert control of a market that produces revenue and profit from a consumable rather than the appliance that processes it.

According to Keurig, the Vue system was introduced “in order to increase the choices users have in brewing beverages.” Now that Vue has failed to gain traction, it appears that Keurig is reaching out to owners and softening their loss.

This certainly sounds like a benevolent company; one that care about consumer preferences, and protections—Right? We’ll get to their motives in a minute…

Keurig Brewer 2.0This month, Keurig put pomp and fanfare behind the introduction of Keurig 2.0. (I think that ‘3.0’ would be a more accurate nomenclature, but who can blame them for trying to downplay the marketplace failure of Vue). And so, this week, I became the owner of a new Keurig 2.0 model 400 brewer. (The flagship model 500—or 560 if you purchase at a warehouse club—has a slightly larger water tank, a larger display screen, and the odd addition of a color changing night light).

Did you catch the omission above? I bet you missed it! I said “I became the owner” rather than “the proud owner”. You might think that unwrapping a new, 3-figure appliance with color display, operating system and lots of shiny new parts would leave me enthralled for at least a week, right?

Not really…

You see, the new Keurig brewer accepts both K-Cup and Vue coffee pods. But it also has has built a camera. The camera spies on the owner of their new 2.0 brewers. (Seriously—It really does!). It’s not trying to film the marital vows that you renewed on the kitchen floor last night. Keurig 2.0 leaves that to the NSA and Google. Rather, the camera is constantly vigilant against any attempt to use unlicensed coffee.

The camera studies the lid of each coffee pod inserted in the brewer and it looks for Taggant, a chemically-coded ink on the outer ring of the lid. It won’t accept the My K-Cup gizmo that Keurig continues to sell for use with legacy brewers, and it even rejects pre-2014 K-Cups from Green Mountain and its partners. Shocking—because they are fully licensed and are well with in the expiration date marked on the package.

For those who own a boatload of Vue pods, the new brewer comes with a comforting statement: “Call us and we will work out something”. Apparently, Keurig will placate owners with a large stash of coffee pods by exchanging them. Gee! That’s great! Just register your products, identify yourself and wait for a package, because your new machine spies on you and will not let you brew your favorite drinks. That’s just ducky.

Was every executive over 25 absent on the day that CEO, Brian Kelley, dreamed up the spy camera? Green Mountain is walking down the path of the early iTunes era. Buy all from Apple or your music won’t play on your phone, your PC or your iPod (the operative word is ‘your’). At least Apple could argue that it was trying to thwart internet piracy.

If you attempt to put a perfectly good coffee pod into a Keurig 2.0 brewer, a message is displayed across a tiny color TV screen:

“Oops! That coffee isn’t compatible with our incredibly high standards! We want you to enjoy the very best experience possible. Besides, you probably wouldn’t enjoy the flavor of coffee from any vendor that refuses to pay us for the privilege of compatibility.”

Keurig-OopsSeriously! It says something just like that. At least, to anyone who can read between the lines. A satirist couldn’t come up with better material for marketing-blunder-of-the year. And not just a blunder, but one that flips a finger to their customers.”

Who would have thunk it? Keurig put DRM into a coffee maker. For cryin’ out loud, it’s a coffee maker! What’s next? Cars that demand Ford-branded gasoline? How about a TV that only displays Sony-licensed content?

As for my new brewer, I have found work-arounds that defeat the Gestapo agent within. Several YouTube mavens describe tricks for keeping Keurig in its place. But make no mistake: It is a pain! I don’t relish the idea of taping a forged software license across a camera and changing it whenever a family member wants to brew a different beverage. I don’t want to search local stores for a licensed K-Cup that is sufficiently close to the each beverage that I already own?                                                 Continue below photo »

Keurig 2.0 brewers look for data hidden in the outer ring

Keurig 2.0 brewers look for data hidden in the outer ring

Keurig has turned their brand into the butt of a joke faster than you can say ARccOS. They must be guided by lawyers with no concept of market dynamics. In the blink of an eye, they will become an anachronism. In a few years, the Keurig 2.0 will be a unit in market training seminars alongside the ‘New Coke’, Andy Grove’s slow recall of the Pentium that exhibited math errors, and Ken Olsen’s conviction that consumers would never buy ‘personal’ computers for use at home.

But unlike Coke and Intel, Keurig doesn’t have a 10 billion dollar cushion. Even worse, they have fooled their fans once before. They may not be able to recover from screwing them over with malicious intent and an extended middle finger.

Green Mountain Coffee has a limited time to recover from the Keurig 2.0 fiasco. Here, then, is our humble WildDuck marketing advice:

  • Change the heartless restriction into an on-screen sales pitch. Be a good guy!
  • Accept all the existing K-Cups that your consumers already own. I have dozens.
  • Offer an adapter that allows owners of your new brewers the same privilege of occasionally scooping in the grounds of their favorite store-bought coffee.

And for G-d’s sake, stop spying on your customers! With a downward-facing camera mounted 10 inches above my kitchen counter, I wonder if your next software update will activate a microphone. Get off my back. Please Keurig; respect your customers!


Afterword 2.0

A guest lecturer at Cornell University asked his students to suggest a shareholder letter from Green Mountain Coffee. I haven’t been a college student in years. But if I were in that class, this would be my letter…

Dear Shareholder,

These are exciting times for your company. As you know, we are introducing a series of Keurig branded coffee brewers that are not quite compatible with both of our previous single-serve coffee pods, the ubiquitous K-Cup and Vue.

Keurig Brian Kelley-a

Brian Kelley; genius behind cameras in coffee pots. But, hey! it’s for your own good. A safer, more enjoyable beverage experience.

As a former Coca-Cola executive, I know a thing or two about tinkering with a successful brand in an effort to teach consumers what is in their best interest. That’s why we pushed New Coke onto the market back then, and it’s no different with the Keurig 2.0 product launch.

Of course, it is critical that we at Green Mountain Coffee convince consumers that our use of digital rights management is a benevolent and beneficial act—one that protects them from unsafe coffee, electrical failure and night terror. We must avoid any perception of ulterior motive or hidden agenda. Fortunately, consumers have a very poor memory. With clever marketing, they will buy our products with an assurance that they cannot accidentally harm themselves (or their Keurig 2.0 appliance) by brewing inferior coffee.

Of course, we could have used the very same coffee pod detection technology to simply display a message that the K-cup a user has inserted is not licensed, and may not taste as wonderful as coffee that comes from a company that pays us for the privilege of compatibility. But that wouldn’t be sufficient. We are concerned that our customers may be too busy enjoying coffee from 10,000 competing brands to heed our urgent warning.

Brian Kelley, CEO
Green Mountain Coffee

Ellery is editor at AWildDuck and owner of a new Keurig 2.0 brewer

Governments head toward Bitcoin without realizing it

This weekend, Ecuador joined at least 5 other countries in walking toward a future that replaces paper and coins with cryptocurrency. But, are these national experiments likely to lead to the future that comes to mind when we think of Bitcoin?

AWildDuck offers this 2-sentence analysis:

  • Most governments and national banks that experiment with cryptocurrency have no intention of empowering citizens nor decoupling their monetary supply from political control
  • But in the end, that’s exactly where they are headed

Ecuador 5000 SucreThese national experiments are fascinating. With Ecuador, there are at least 6 national efforts to embrace cryptocurrency around the world, including two in Africa, two in Latin America, Iceland and Israel.

It’s unfortunate that each potentate has created a disparate internal and proprietary currency. Most of these territorial adopters have not mathematically capped their supply. They buy into the legacy ‘wisdom’ that controlled inflation is a necessary attribute to stimulate spending and grow an economy.

Perhaps they see cryptocurrency as a an evolutionary mechanism to lower the production and distribution cost of coins and bills and thwart counterfeiting—just as  many countries have switched from paper bills to plastic. That’s a limited view of a very positive revolution in the making. The leaders and central banks of many countries seem to miss the point. It’s not just about new technology. It’s about free markets, limited supply, public trust and citizen empowerment. In fact, it’s all about growth, free markets and the expansion of wealth.

Hopefully, these experiments are just a step toward combining monetary policy with an open digital currency while fostering a grass roots revival of public trust… Eventually, governments will recognize that properly implemented cryptocurrency—one that is free to usurp the national mint—leads to increased faith in government. At least, if one’s  government demonstrates a willingness to decouple politics from monetary policy.

Ellery Davies is a founding member of CRYPSA, the Cryptocurrency
Standards Association. He is also chief editor at AWildDuck. Catch
all of his Bitcoin articles here.

Latency beats speed for most Internet activity

This evening, editors at Quora asked me to suggest network optimization methods to enhance the Internet experience of Internet gamers. My 5-step reply, below, is good practice for anyone who wants a zippier Internet experience.

Forums across the web stress a high Internet service connection speed as the panacea for an gaming or web experience that lacks zing. Sure, speed is important for network backup or for streaming HD video (although often the problem lies in the video service bandwidth or a financial dispute between Netflix and your ISP). But for everything else — especially  robust web surfing experience, speed takes a back seat to latency. That frustration that you feel when web pages don’t pop up instnatly after a click is more likely related to latency than throughput.

Speed is the rate at which a open or streaming data connection passes data. It is measured in megabits per second. In 2014, a speed or ‘bandwidth’ of 30 or 50 Mbps is typical for residential cable or fibertoptic service. With their FIOS service, Verizon offers consumers speeds of up to 300 mbps.

Latency is quite different than speed. It is a measurement of the delay in getting a single packet from point A to point B. It is typically measured in milliseconds. (35 ms is typical of an optimized route. 65 ms is tolerable and 120 ms yields a frustrating experience. If you are a gamer or you use VOIP (voice-over-Internet protocol), you should test your services various hosting sites so that you can get the latency under 50ms. Otherwise, you will notice a lag in the responses coming from the other side of your connection. On phone calls, this is particularly annoying.

Because latency involves two end points, measurement entails choosing a remote web server or Internet page. In Windows, latency is measured using a command prompt and the PING or TRACERT commands. (This article is not meant to explain the command or be a procedural tutorial. Look it up or ask your neighborhood Geek).

If you discover very short latency with some sites, but problem results with a few, then the problem is not within your home or local ISP infrastructure. It is related to the remote site that is part of your test or something in the path that is closer to it than to you. But if you find that latency is poor for most of the sites that you choose in your tests, then the problem is very likely with your ISP or even in your own home or business.

Incidentally, tips for reducing latency are offered in the footnote to #1…

1. A fast internet connection (50 Mbps or better should do) *

2. Try to use a direct connection to the Internet rather than WiFi. If that’s not possible, use the latest technology 802.11AC router. (If you really want to burn rubber, check out the Netgear Nighthawk series). make sure that any switch or router inside your home is at least 1 Gbps.

3. Discourage others in your home from doing backups, file transfers, Netflix streaming, Skype or VOIP calls. Even if they are not accessing the WAN/uplink, they will likely hog the limited aggregate bandwidth of your switch or router. Even printing can interfere with gaming unless the user has an ad-hoc/p2p connection with the printer.

4. Check your gaming document for any special requirements such as the need for a phase-inverted, biturbo micro-encabulator. ** [Continue below video]

5. [Advaced]: Learn about the frame buffer feature in your router or switch and study the communications optimization features of your operating system. In some cases, a tool from your ISP can do wonders to optimize some of the esoteric Windows or Mac settings.

* Even more important than a fast Internet connection is the need for a short round trip packet latency. Use a command prompt or diagnostic app to test the ping time (delay) between you and IP addresses of the gaming server or other critical nodes that you can identify.

If ping times are more than 65 ms, look for a different Internet service or perhaps the problem is within your home… Reduce the number of switches and routers between you and the Internet. With a little fine tuning (for example, experimenting with gaming sites that offer multiple hosting cities), you may get the ping time below 35 ms. That would make a big difference in your gaming experience. It may give you the edge that you need.

** I was kidding in #4. There’s no such thing as a biturbo micro encapsulator. But still, you should check the gaming documentation!

 

The Baby Exchange

Can telling a white lie to a child backfire? It did for me.

From time to time, at AWildDuck, I offer an observation or op-ed on a topic of human interest. This one is not about current events, the price of gold, law or politics. Nah. It’s just Ellery relating a personal experience and a lesson learned…

When my teenage daughter was 3 or 4 years old, I took her with me for a routine blood test (my test and not hers). On the way to the hospital, I explained that we would be visiting the same hospital where we ‘bought’ her. She seemed to accept the explanation. She even asked if the hospital had a variety of babies from which new parents could choose.

car seat tantrumLater, during that same ride, she became irritable and whiny. She complained about something unrelated to our hospital conversation. In an effort to calm her, I made a terrible blunder. Actually, it was just a joke. At least that’s how I saw it. But to my daughter, is was an ominous threat…

I told her, “If you don’t calm down and behave, I will ask the doctor if I can return you for a refund or maybe exchange you for another model. Suddenly, she became very quiet. I assumed that she had simply stopped fretting over whatever was bothering her. In any case, I interpreted the sudden tranquility as good behavior.

[One hour later]…

Throughout the appointment, my little girl remained as quiet as a church mouse. I figured that she must simply be processing the fact that blood can be drawn from a person’s arm. When I completed the brief procedure, I realized that we were directly across a hall from the obstetrics ward. I hadn’t visited since my daughter was born. It seemed a good idea to check it out under less stressful circumstances. Holding my girl’s hand, we walked over. Almost Immediately, I spotted the doctor and head nurse who delivered my daughter.

Doctor_Nurse-a

Dr. John DeLoge & Trish Hardigan, RN

“Cupcake”, I said. “I want you to meet some very special people. This is the doctor and nurse that brought you to Mommy and Daddy.” My daughter froze. At first, she offered only a blank stare, Her eyes were as big as saucers.

Gradually, I realized that my precious cupcake was in a state of shock. Her eyes welled up in tears. She began to wail at the top of her lungs while hyperventilating.
“P-l-e-e-e-z-e, Daddy! Don’t give me back to the hop-pis-tal. Don’t exchange me for another baby!! Pleeeze don’t do that!! I promise that I’ll be good! I will never whine or talk back again—EVER! I promise, Daddy! I want to live with you and Mommy! Don’t exchange me!”

Realizing that my precious girl was terrified and that the terror was caused by me, I held her tightly and explained that I was wrong to tell her what I did. I explained that Mom & Dad’s love is unconditional and that parents never return babies.

She calmed down and we headed for the parking lot. But not before the nurse reminded me that a parent must never place a child’s security in doubt—nor assume that a toddler could understand a joke that trifles with the security of the family unit.

I agree.

Quantum Entanglement: EPR Paradox

When I was a freshman at Cornell University some decades ago, I had a memorable teaching assistant for CS100, the entry level computer programming course taken by nearly every student in Engineering or Arts & Sciences. Gilles Brassard, a French Canadian, is now a chaired math professor at Université de Montréal and a preeminent cryptographer. He has also been inducted into the Royal Order of Canada. I am told that this is a bit like being knighted. In fact, this highest of civilian honors was established by Queen Elizabeth.

Ellery with Gilles Brassard in 2014

Ellery with Gilles Brassard in 2014

Gilles was a graduate student at Cornell in the mid ’70s. Back then, public key encryption was a radical concept. Named for three MIT professors who described it, RSA is now it is at the heart of every secure Internet transaction. Yet, the new \generation of cryptographers refers to RSA as “classical cryptography”. The radicals have moved on to Quantum Cryptography. Gilles and his collaborator, Charles Bennett, are the pioneers and leaders in this burgeoning field. No one else is even pretender to the throne.

In its simplest terms, quantum cryptography achieves a secure communication channel because it relies on a stream of individual particles or “quanta” to convey information. If information is sent without any fat at all—just the minimum physics that can support the entropy—then any eavesdropping or rerouting of a message can be detected by the recipient. Voila! Perfect authentication, fidelity and security. Communication is secure because any attack can be detected.

But when you begin to experiment with gating individual quanta of anything, you are typically working within a world of minute, elementary particles—things like photons or electrons with properties that change as they are measured. And the issue of measurement doesn’t just invoke Heisenbeg (he demonstrated that measurements change a property being measured), but also superpositioning of states that resolve only when they are observed. Say, Whaaht?!

Perhaps, we are getting ahead of ourselves. The goal of this article is to share with Wild Ducks my fascination over the strange, yet repeatable experimental results achieved by Gilles and by quantum physicists. I am no expert, but given a sufficiently lay explanation, marvel with me at a baffling outcome. It will shakes your perception of reality. It suggests that science and math are not as black and white as you believed.

The EPR Paradox

Albert EinsteinAlbert Einstein worked for years to develop an understanding of entangled particles that was consistent with his earlier work in special relativity. By the mid 20th century, physicist were reasonably certain that information could never be conveyed faster than light. It’s not just the math that convinced them. It was the crazy things that would happen if light is not a universal speed limit…

If information—mass or energy, particle or wave, substantive or pure thought—if any of these things travels faster light, then given the time dilation characteristic of things moving in relation to each other, very unlikely things would be possible. For example:

  • If information travels faster than light. it would be possible to deliver a reply to a message that had not yet been sent
  • If information travels faster than light, it would be possible to send a message back in time and prevent your parents from meeting each other

So the math that imposes a universal speed limit also preserves our concept of reality. Sure, we can accept that energy and mass are fungible. We can even accept that distance and time are malleable. But time paradoxes defy common sense and beg for a solution that preserves our sanity.

The effort to reconcile the two theories or arrive at a unifying model became known as the EPR Paradox, named after Einstein and his colleagues, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen. Given assumptions considered axiomatic, the math suggests that information passes between entangled particles faster than light — in fact, instantaneously and at any distance. Near the end of his life, Einstein reluctantly acknowledged that there must be an error in math, or in assumptions, or that some undiscovered, rational explanation could resolve the paradox. Ultimately, he dismissed the notion of particles synchronously and instantly communicating with each other as “spooky action at a distance”. Just as his another memorable quote, “God doesn’t play dice with the world”, the two phrases are indelibly inscribed onto the great physicist’s epitaph.

Of course, even before humans could travel to the moon (about 1.3 light seconds from earth) researchers tried to test Einstein’s theory. But even with very precise instruments to measure time and distance, it was still difficult in the 1930s and 40s to create, transport and measure characteristics of elementary particles.

Back then, Einstein assumed that we would measure wave collapse positions or particle momentum. Today, scientists measure a particle’s polarization or spin or destruction. These properties are more easily changed and measured. In the 1960s and 70s, the EPR paradox returned to popular inquiry when physicists John Stewart Bell—and later Lamehi-Rachti and Mittig, conducted experiments that supported Einstein’s original thesis. That is, faster-than-light communication seemed to take place.

So, given appropriate experimental methodology, could it actually be possible to receive a package before it was sent?

Probably not. But the experimental result is more shocking than “Yes” and way more interesting than “No”. In fact, the outcome to recent experiments force us to confront our understanding of causality. It makes us wonder if reality is an illusion. It shatters our concept of time and space even more than Einstein’s more famous theory of relativity.

Since measurements made in nanoseconds are difficult to visualize, I shall illustrate the experiment and the surprising results by stretching the distance involved. But this is not a metaphor. Actual results actually play out as described here.          Continue below image…

quantum entangled particlesThe Experiment

Suppose that I create a pair of entangled particles. It doesn’t matter what this means or how I accomplish the feat. I wish only to test if a change to one particle affects the other. But more specifically, I want to separate them by a great distance and determine if a change to the local particle influences the remote particle instantly, or at least faster than accounted for by a light-speed signal between the two of them.

If you could construct such an experiment, it seems reasonable to assume that you would observe one of four possible outcomes. The results should demonstrate that the remote particle is either:

  • not affected at all
  • affected – apparently instantly or nearly in synchrony with the first particle
  • affected – but only after a delay in which a light speed signal could reach it
  • uncorrelated or inconsistently correlated with it’s entangled mate

The actual result is none of these, and it is almost too stunning to contemplate. In fact, the particle is highly correlated, but the correlation is with the observer’s cognition. But again, I am getting ahead of myself. Let’s look at our experimental set up…

I send an astronaut into space with a box that contains an experimental apparatus. The astronaut travels a distance about as far away from Earth as the sun. It takes about 8 minutes for light (or any message) to reach the astronaut. The box contains the “twin” of many paired particles back on earth. Each particle is trapped in a small crystal and numbered. The box also contains an instrument that can measure the polarization of any photon and a noisy inkjet printer that can be heard from outside the box.

Back on the earth, I have the mate to each paired photon. All of my photons exhibit a polarity than can be measured and expressed as a 2-D angle with any value from 0 to 360 degrees. Our test uses polarized filters to measure the angle of polarity and is very accurate. We can record 4 digits of precision. For the purpose of this test, it doesn’t matter if our measurement affects a particle or even if it destroys it, because we can repeat the test many times.

Clocks on the earth and at the spaceship are synchronized, and the ship is not moving relative to the earth. It is effectively stationary. On earth, each numbered photon is disturbed exactly on the hour. At the spaceship, an astronaut measures the polarity of a paired photon one minute before and one minute after each hourly event.

We know that our photons all begin with a polarity of 15.48 degrees as measured relative some fixed and rigid orientation. The astronaut confirms this with each photon tested before the hourly chime. But at each hour (say 3PM in New York), we disturb a photon on earth (radiate it or pass it through a filter). This changes its polarity.

Suppose that the earth lab determines that a photon was changed at 3PM from a polarity of 15.48° to a polarity of 122.6°. (Any new polarization will do).

Recall that the spaceship is 8 light-minutes away. We wish to determine if photon pairs communicate more quickly than the speed of light. Question: If the astronaut tests the polarity of the paired photon at 3:01 PM (just after its mate on the earth has been altered), do you suppose that he will still detect the original spin of 15.48°? Or will he detect the new spin of 122.6°?

The answer is more startling than either outcome. In fact, it leaves most people in disbelief or outright denial. (Yes…You are being set up for a surprise. But what is it?!)

To make things more interesting, let’s say that you cannot see the results. The box is sealed during the experiment, but you can hear the printer within the box as it prints the polarity after each test. Each time you run the experiment, you unplug the printer right after you hear it print a result. Then, you open the box and read the results.

Spookiness at a Distance

If you open the box less than 8 minutes after the hour (that is, less than the time that it takes light to travel from earth to the astronaut), the printout will always show a polarity of 15.48°. If you open the box after 8 minutes, you will always see a polarity of 122.6°. In both cases, the test was completed and the result was printed in the first minute after the photon on earth was shifted to a new polarization.

Wait! It gets better! If you eventually learn to distinguish the different sounds that the printer makes when it records either result, it will always print 15.48°, even if you wait 8 minutes before actually looking at the print out. The fact that you found a way to ‘cheat’ apparently changes the outcome. Or at least, that is the conclusion that a reasonable person would make when presented with knowledge-induced causality. It’s either that—or we are all crazy.

But quantum physicists (and cryptographers like Gilles) have another explanation. They point out that Einstein’s theory of special relativity doesn’t actually prohibit faster than light phenomena. It only prohibits faster than light communication. If the thing that happens instantaneously cannot be pressed into conveying useful information, then it doesn’t violate special relativity! That is, perturbations applied to one part of a quantum entangled pair are apparently instantaneous, but an observation or experiment on the remote twin will not produce a result that allows you to determine the new state until sufficient time for a light beam to pass from one to the other.

Another explanation: Superpositioning (In my opinion it was contrived to support both quantum mechanics and the EPR paradox), is that the paired photon simultaneously existed at both polarities until someone opened the box and peeked at its state.

Or perhaps time is not an arrow and we are not continuously pushed forward at the tip of that arrow. –Or perhaps the stuff we were told about space being folded was true. –Or perhaps… Oh Heck! I’ll go with the first explanation: From our perspective, entangled particles change simultaneously, but mysterious forces of nature don’t allow us to observe the change until the laws of special relativity allow it. Why is that? Because if we could observe information before it was ‘legal’ to do so, then we could change the past.

The take away to this experiment is that just like wave velocity, some things move faster than the speed of light, but useful information cannot do so. For useful information, light is still the speed limit.

Gilles Brassard is not a physicist, but a computer scientist and cryptographer. Yet he has received awards that are typically given to physicists. His experiments and those by scientists around the world render a layperson like me dumbstruck.

Of course, Gilles didn’t ship an inkjet printer into space with half of an entangled pair (my experimental construct). Instead, he measured and recorded a particle state in a way that is self-encrypted. He then he sent the encryption key from the distant particle that had been disturbed. Even though the key is just two bits (too little to contain a measurement of photon spin), the old spin was observed if the key was applied before the time it would have taken to classically transmit and receive the information.

Just as with my experimental setup, results are almost too much to wrap a proverbial brain around. But truths that are hard to believe make great fodder for Wild Ducks. If my non-scientific, jargon free explanation gets across the results of the EPR experiment (actually, it is at the leading edge of my own understanding), then you are now as puzzled and amazed as me.

More reading: Search for “EPR Paradox”, “Bell’s theorem” or “quantum entanglement