Talk:Interplanetary Internet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Faster Than Light[edit]

Does this allow for faster than light communication?

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-05/chinese-physicists-teleport-protons-over-100-kilometers

AbstractClass (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Nope. -- 141.20.43.174 (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

quantum entanglement might. What that article refers to is a special case of quantum entanglement called quantum teleportation, which is currently limited to the speed of light because not only must the quantum information on those protons be transmitted (theoretically, that part of the process can be instantaneous), but the process as we currently understand it requires photonic transmission of the "classical bits" of information on the photons, too - so it's limited to the speed of light right now.
In the future, if the classical bits limitation is ever overcome, or another method of quantum entanglement is found that is usable in communication over large distances without needing to teleport matter, the process might proceed instantaneously, though. Then you'd have your faster-than-light communications.loupgarous (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boredom[edit]

I suppose when you're stuck inside a tiny space colony on the surface of a hostile world millions of miles from Earth, there's not much else to do than surf the internet.

in space no one can hear you fap to pr0n AbstractClass (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Fiction[edit]

There should be references to fictional uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.118.208 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

question - do we talk about the hypothetical factual basis for faster-than-light messaging - quantum entanglement? It's the one physical interaction that can underlie "ansibles" and other faster-than-light messaging which we've had at least partially confirmed by experiments today. I'm just throwing this out for discussion by the massed minds :) Or should this be its own heading in the Talk Page? loupgarous (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another question occurring to me is "Fictional uses of the 'Interplanetary Internet' itself, or things like it? John Varley's novel The Ophiuchi Hotline and short story "The Black Hole Passes", written in the late 1970s before ARPANET (which would eventually become the Internet) was very well-known, are about interstellar data transmissions by aliens intercepted by people from Earth. Several of Ursula K. LeGuin's novels and short stories feature a technology capable of hosting real-time conversations at interstellar distances called the ansible. Ansibles are (in terms of current physics) transfers of information by changing the quantum state of a pair of quantum-entangled atoms at different locations - but without requiring a "classical bit" - a photon - which limits the speed of the transition to the speed of light - as part of the transfer of information.
Would these stories/story arcs be included under "fictional uses of the Interplanetary Internet"? Are there any fictional uses of the Interplanetary Internet which call it by that name? loupgarous (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why Lasers Are Faster than Radio Waves For Digital Transmissions[edit]

"It would use optical communications using laser beams for their lower ping rates than radiowaves."

I'm sorry, but since when is the Speed of Light frequency-dependant??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.102.112 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. The boxed comment you're referring to isn't talking about the speed of light, but the reliability and speed with which information can be sent via Internet Protocol over a coherent photonic channel such as a laser (light) or maser (microwave). Lasers and masers are less vulnerable to "noise" in a transmission because the receiver can be made to only "see" the laser/maser signal; this reduces the number of times an Internet protocol message must be resent due to corruption of the message as opposed to a broadcast signal in which noise is a greater potential component of the transmission - each time a signal must be resent due to excessive noise in the channel, it reduces the speed of the connection.
Ping rates would be even more significant in IP transmissions between planets than between points ON a planet because there's already a significant delay due to the limited speed of light - taking the Moon as an example, there's a lag of roughly a second and a half between the sending of a message from Earth or to Earth and when it's received, if everything goes perfectly.
If ping rates go up due to signal problems ("noise" in the message signal which requires that we resend the signal because it's not readable), the lag goes up at least four and a half seconds for each additional ping (a second and a half to send the corrupt message, a second and a half to send a message back asking for the original message to be re-sent, and a second and a half to re-send the message).
This doesn't count the time for the computers involved to determine automatically that the message is corrupt, choose the signal to request resending of the message, and accept the re-sent message - modern computers work fast enough that all of this is done in a small fraction of a second, while the lag between the Moon and Earth is a second and a half. Really noisy connections between the Moon and Earth would tend to lag enough to be annoying.
When we get into sending Internet messages to Mars, ping rates become potentially catastrophic, because one-way delay ranges from four minutes to twenty-four minutes, so resending messages over an Internet connection can involve delays of between twelve and seventy-two minutes - an hour and twelve minutes for every dropped bit, potentially.
None of this involves frequency dependence of the speed of light - just plain old propagation delays due to the speed of light in a vacuum - 186,300 miles per second. loupgarous (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum teleportation[edit]

How about quantum teleportation in communications? --85.76.162.141 (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a special case of quantum entanglement in which the quantum-mechanical information attaching to single atoms has been transmitted as far as 89 miles as of this writing. The quantum-mechanical structure of the atom involved is called a "qubit," and in the process of teleportation is not copied, but is moved to the destination. That this happens by means of quantum entanglement states implies that intervening distance doesn't affect the speed at which this information is transmitted - if all that was involved was altering the quantum state of two entangled objects, that would happen instantly.
However, at present quantum teleportation is limited to the speed at which the "classical bits" of information accompanying the qubits arrive (classical bits are photons, so they are limited to the speed of light). Just now, it's not faster than light or even instantaneous, but takes place at the speed of light, and no faster. However, since it depends on entanglement between two discrete objects, quantum entanglement and teleportation are interesting ways to encrypt messages - their current practical application. You have to have one of the two entangled objects at each point (transmission and reception) as a "key" in order to decrypt a message, theoretically.
The hope is eventually we'll get what's known as an "ansible," a piece of communications gear that will let us communicate instantaneously over great distances, using mechanisms that take advantage of quantum entanglement. Quantum teleportation would be one form of ansible if the "classical bits" limitation is ever overcome. The term "ansible" comes to us from the science-fiction works of Ursula K. LeGuin, and she was an early user of the idea that faster-than-light communications would be necessary and possible at some point in the future. I hope she reads this discussion and that it brings her naches. loupgarous (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And in late news... the good people at Kavli Institute of Nanoscience Delft, Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands have demonstrated transmission of qubit data themselves across a space of three meters, with no technical barrier to doing so across much greater distances. So far, there's no indication as to whether or not this experiment's overcome the "classical bit" restriction on speed of data transfer.[1][2]loupgarous (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/05/28/science.1253512
  2. ^ http://www.gizmag.com/teleport-quantum-information/32352/

What does DTN stand for?[edit]

The acronym appears without explanation and is used copiously, and it is NOT obvious.

  • DTN Data Transfer Network
  • DTN Data Transmission Network
  • DTN Dauphin Touch Network Pvt. Ltd. (India)
  • DTN Daystar Television Network
  • DTN Defence Teleprinter Network (UK military)
  • DTN Defense Telecommunications Network
  • DTN Defense-Technology News (blog)
  • DTN Delay-Tolerant Networking
  • DTN Dépistage des Troubles Nutritionnels (French: Screening of Nutritional Disorders)
  • DTN Depth to NAPL (Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid)
  • DTN Développement Tremblant Nord (French real estate company)
  • DTN Diffusion Technique du Nord (French fireplace accessory company)
  • DTN Digital Telephone Network
  • DTN Direction Technique Nationale (French: National Technical Direction)
  • DTN Disruption Tolerant Network
  • DTN Duplex, Tray, Network (HP designator on LaserJet printers)
  • DTN Dysphagia Trained Nurse (UK)

Could someone disambiguate? 83.14.232.226 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delay-Tolerant Network. Expanded with a wikilink in the first 2 uses in the article. Thank for bringing it up! The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lower ping rates than radiowaves[edit]

"It would have used optical communications using laser beams for their lower ping rates than radiowaves."

How come is this the case, don't either travel at the speed of light in a vacuum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.76.243 (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion "Why Lasers Are Faster than Radio Waves for Digital Transmissions" above. While lasers and radio waves travel roughly at the same speed (the speed of light in a vacuum), lasers are coherent and monochromatic streams of photons all travelling at the same frequency and wavelength in a very tight beam. More of the total wattage of the signal arrives in a relatively small area at the reception point, making the signal stronger and less prone to interference. as well. This makes the signal to noise ratio in a laser transmission much higher than a radio transmission, which is potentially prone to interference from other radio signals and fans out over a wider area than a laser beam.
The fewer errors (also known as "dropped bits") in a digital transmission, the faster the transmission goes, because fewer parts of the transmission have to be repeated because of signal errors caused by noise (the ping rate is the number of times corrupt parts of a digital transmission are detected and re-sent). Laser receivers can be tuned to receive only the wavelength of photons the laser transmitter sends more selectively and efficiently than radio receivers and transmitters (because space is full of radio noise), causing a lower ping rate and a faster transmission. I discuss this at greater length in the discussion "Why Lasers Are Faster than Radio Waves for Digital Transmissions" above. loupgarous (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Interplanetary Internet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CFDP Citation Needed[edit]

"CFDP should not be confused with Coherent File Distribution Protocol, which has the same acronym and is an IETF-documented experimental protocol for rapidly deploying files to multiple targets in a highly networked environment.[citation needed] "

Given that the sentence includes a link to a wiki page about the other CFDP, isn't a citation already provided? Emteeoh (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ground[edit]

"Challenges and reasons[edit source]. In the core implementation... planet's satellites". Communication on the ground is a subject to talk about with groundlinks for all send and receive. Organic is always found there. Why try to maintain satellites at all? Nesshunter (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interplanetary_Internet&oldid=1207212528"