Re: Quantum Illumination
- From: "nuny@xxxxxxx" <Alien8752@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:40:45 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 24, 2:33 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
n...@xxxxxxx wrote:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-entanglement
starts off fairly clever-sounding, about using entangled photons for
illuminating targets so as to eliminate confusion from extraneous,
unentangled photons (think radar).
But typical of quantum topics it rapidly turns weird. Apparently, to
get the most benefit from using entangled photons the entanglement
must be destroyed before the reflected photons are received.
Now granted that if one thinks they understand QM they are wrong,
but how are we to grok this?
Is this the path to SF "sensors" capable of tricks not possible with
ordinary EM?
Or is this just the new macguffin?
The article indicates it's a new theoretical conclusion based on
calculations that hasn't been completely accepted, much less
demonstrated in the real world yet. The article doesn't really even go
into detail about what the actual effect is that's being discussed, not
that that's a huge surprise.
Worse, the author actually states he came up with this to keep the
DARPA money flowing, so I was afraid it was sheerest grantology.
I think I'll run it past sci.physics and see if anybody has any
insights.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Quantum Illumination
- From: Erik Max Francis
- Re: Quantum Illumination
- References:
- Quantum Illumination
- From: nuny@xxxxxxx
- Re: Quantum Illumination
- From: Erik Max Francis
- Quantum Illumination
- Prev by Date: Re: What if no more transistors?
- Next by Date: Re: Quantum Illumination
- Previous by thread: Re: Quantum Illumination
- Next by thread: Re: Quantum Illumination
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|