If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Baltimore Sun)   Scientist creates ghost-imaging quantum camera. It uses sunlight and quantum mechanics to take a picture of an object it never sees directly   (baltimoresun.com) divider line 73
    More: Cool, quantum physics, sunlight, quantum, UMBC, ghost imaging, quantum optics, objects, cameras  
•       •       •

6207 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jul 2012 at 6:01 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



73 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-15 06:00:41 PM  
I'd love to see a quantum image of a ghost.
 
2012-07-15 06:28:40 PM  
i1244.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-15 07:16:56 PM  
Enhance grid 41-47
Zoom in
 
2012-07-15 08:56:18 PM  
Yes.
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-15 09:12:56 PM  
Umm...was that supposed to make sense?
 
2012-07-15 10:23:29 PM  
And then it all went quantum.
 
2012-07-15 10:34:02 PM  
This is what happens when the sports writer fills in for the vacationing science writer.
 
2012-07-15 11:09:36 PM  
"...take a picture of an object it never sees directly"

farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-07-15 11:39:14 PM  
Insiders say they'll soon be able to produce pictures of objects across continents, even on other planets, and with none of the distortion often seen in traditional photography.

Um.... holy shiat??!?!
 
2012-07-16 12:23:37 AM  
I need to find something about this that makes more sense.
 
2012-07-16 12:34:27 AM  
How will this effect ghost chips?
 
2012-07-16 01:18:25 AM  

Rain-Monkey: Insiders say they'll soon be able to produce pictures of objects across continents, even on other planets, and with none of the distortion often seen in traditional photography.

Um.... holy shiat??!?!


If they'd quoted an actual scientist saying that, my jaw would drop. However since its just a newspaper writer "summarizing" the details, its probably bears no resemblance to anything they were actually told.
 
2012-07-16 01:50:36 AM  
such as a naked woman.
 
2012-07-16 01:57:03 AM  
so where is the picture it took?
 
2012-07-16 02:38:09 AM  
You changed the outcome by measuring it
 
2012-07-16 06:09:33 AM  

ShawnDoc: Rain-Monkey: Insiders say they'll soon be able to produce pictures of objects across continents, even on other planets, and with none of the distortion often seen in traditional photography.

Um.... holy shiat??!?!

If they'd quoted an actual scientist saying that, my jaw would drop. However since its just a newspaper writer "summarizing" the details, its probably bears no resemblance to anything they were actually told.


At first I thought 'hey, I had too much wine las night because my brain cannot process what I am reading here'.
But since everyone else had the same reaction - WTF does this mean?
I was prepared for an informative article and now I just feel agitated.

Whar is ghost?
 
2012-07-16 06:10:00 AM  
Great! Finally, a way to monitor those pesky Weeping Angels!
 
2012-07-16 06:12:58 AM  
cutecaptions.com
 
2012-07-16 07:11:18 AM  
i1127.photobucket.com

I think I understand the process well enough but this....

Rain-Monkey: Insiders say they'll soon be able to produce pictures of objects across continents, even on other planets, and with none of the distortion often seen in traditional photography.


seems like a stretch. You'd have to be able to isolate a specific set of photon pairs that strike the object you're interested in viewing and at those distances, that would seem to be difficult.
 
2012-07-16 07:32:24 AM  
An article about a photo that doesn't show the actual photo under discussion? Yep, another "journalist" who doesn't understand how the internet works.
 
hej [TotalFark]
2012-07-16 07:42:33 AM  
... with a helpful photo of what said ghost images look like.
 
2012-07-16 07:45:08 AM  
In the event that the writer got it right...

It means that that there is now a better explanation for all those times in science fiction shows where they seem to remotely view places, objects and people when there is no cameras at those locations.

No more privacy, at least where illuminated by the sun.

And if I understand quantum theory, which I don't really, the two entangled photons have to hit the object and camera at the same time, which I think would make viewing locations on distant planets impossible unless you can capture a photon in a holding pattern and only let it hit the camera when its counterpart hit the object.
 
2012-07-16 07:46:09 AM  
Well that turned out to be an epic fail article... an article about a new kind of photograph without any of the photographs...
 
2012-07-16 07:52:29 AM  
Many physicists still resist the idea that light is even a quantum phenomenon - in other words, that photons act as though they were both particles and waves, and that they affect one another at a distance.

Wat?

Here's a better article on the topic anyhow:
Dr. Shih's experiments

Snapper Carr
You'd have to be able to isolate a specific set of photon pairs that strike the object you're interested in viewing and at those distances, that would seem to be difficult.

That also seems to be the trouble with Karmakar's experiment. From a practical standpoint, his detector B has to directly observe the object anyway to confirm photon pairs, so why even bother with detector A or the expensive computational process?
 
2012-07-16 07:53:58 AM  
I've seen these working tech demos for a couple of years, why is it news now?

Also as i understand it, the system requires two photons which are Quantum Entangled. For the purposes of this technique it means varying one photon impacts the other. I can see how it is able to be done where we *produce* the two photons, but that's on a 6m by 4m lab bench.

Still, it absolutely melts my brain even with papers/talks/lectures on it.

Also I would agree that timing is absolutely crucial, although we can time things pretty farking well.


Perhaps this is the first field-deployable example?
 
2012-07-16 07:56:19 AM  

talkertopc: No more privacy, at least where illuminated by the sun.


Dark rooms for fapping?
 
2012-07-16 07:58:39 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Many physicists still resist the idea that light is even a quantum phenomenon - in other words, that photons act as though they were both particles and waves, and that they affect one another at a distance.

Wat?


I read that and thought "What physicists? Lord Kelvin?". I mean it is an undergraduate demonstration to show wave-like and particle-like behaviour of light. Heck, if it weren't true my PhD would be even more farked than it already is!
 
2012-07-16 08:05:46 AM  

Snapper Carr: seems like a stretch. You'd have to be able to isolate a specific set of photon pairs that strike the object you're interested in viewing and at those distances, that would seem to be difficult.


I was gonna ask...how do you choose the target of this quantum camera? I'm sure you have to point the camera at the target, but then the camera IS viewing what it's taking a picture of.

Maybe I need to re-read that article...
 
2012-07-16 08:07:47 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: That also seems to be the trouble with Karmakar's experiment. From a practical standpoint, his detector B has to directly observe the object anyway to confirm photon pairs, so why even bother with detector A or the expensive computational process?


Bingo.
 
2012-07-16 08:11:12 AM  

TasyRadiSkull: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Many physicists still resist the idea that light is even a quantum phenomenon - in other words, that photons act as though they were both particles and waves, and that they affect one another at a distance.

Wat?

I read that and thought "What physicists? Lord Kelvin?". I mean it is an undergraduate demonstration to show wave-like and particle-like behaviour of light. Heck, if it weren't true my PhD would be even more farked than it already is!


The article I found and linked said two guys from MIT criticized Shih's work by saying his specific results may not be the result of a quantum phenomenon since they can be explained by classic physics.

I suspect a serious "lost in translation" issue, especially on behalf of the journalist.
 
2012-07-16 08:14:47 AM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: The article I found and linked said two guys from MIT criticized Shih's work by saying his specific results may not be the result of a quantum phenomenon since they can be explained by classic physics.

I suspect a serious "lost in translation" issue, especially on behalf of the journalist.


That goes a long way to explaining a lot. Thanks!

The Optics group at Glasgow were big into ghost imaging (I assume still are) when I was an undergrad there. It always struck me as being a wonderfully weird mind fark, but there was never any contention on the wave-particle duality of light.
 
2012-07-16 08:18:13 AM  

xanadian: MusicMakeMyHeadPound: That also seems to be the trouble with Karmakar's experiment. From a practical standpoint, his detector B has to directly observe the object anyway to confirm photon pairs, so why even bother with detector A or the expensive computational process?

Bingo.


To be fair, science doesn't run on practicality. Good for these guys working this out.

I'm just saying I'm not particularly impressed.
 
2012-07-16 08:18:14 AM  

xanadian: how do you choose the target of this quantum camera?


You isolate the target and catch the photons that bounce off of it in a detector. It's really misleading to say that you can "take a photograph from a continent away". You need a detector at the target, and it's really the detector that's taking the photograph- at least half of it anyway. The other half of the photograph is taken by another detector anywhere else where the sun is up.

From there, it's statistics. If two photons are emitted from the sun at nearly the same time, there are statistical models that can be used to describe how entangled they may or may not be (the answer is, not a lot entangled). So we capture pairs of photons and measure the time of their arrival and do some maths and voila- you get a picture.

This is not a tool for making photographs. This is a tool for demonstrating entanglement detection on solar emitted photons.
 
2012-07-16 08:28:33 AM  

Snapper Carr: I think I understand the process well enough but this....

Rain-Monkey: Insiders say they'll soon be able to produce pictures of objects across continents, even on other planets, and with none of the distortion often seen in traditional photography.

seems like a stretch. You'd have to be able to isolate a specific set of photon pairs that strike the object you're interested in viewing and at those distances, that would seem to be difficult.


I wonder if entanglement (or similar) has a role here? Simply "tune" a local photon to its distant pair and voila! One step closer to "on screen"...
 
2012-07-16 08:33:43 AM  
So he reinvented the military's top secret synthetic aperture radar?

/Yawn.
 
2012-07-16 08:39:55 AM  
Is this really all that new? I've seen at least two SIGGRAPH demonstration videos/white papers on generation of an image that is not directly seen by the camera by reconstructing the image by calculating the light bounced off of it, the earliest one being in 2004.
 
2012-07-16 08:41:10 AM  
www.themogblog.com

The first picture taken.
 
2012-07-16 08:57:22 AM  
I will ask some people at work to explain this a bit more to me. Luckily I work with quantum physicists!
 
2012-07-16 09:02:37 AM  

Rain-Monkey: Insiders say they'll soon be able to produce pictures of objects across continents, even on other planets, and with none of the distortion often seen in traditional photography.

Um.... holy shiat??!?!


fashionablygeek.com
 
2012-07-16 09:03:40 AM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: And then it all went quantum.


Don't underestimate the power of quantum.
 
2012-07-16 09:12:24 AM  
I want my camera to take photos where the subject's clothes are three feet to the left.

/It would only be used for science!
//Honest.
 
2012-07-16 09:13:39 AM  

TasyRadiSkull: I mean it is an undergraduate high school science class demonstration to show wave-like and particle-like behaviour of light.


FTFY. It was part of the curriculum in my high school physics class 28 years ago.
 
2012-07-16 09:23:03 AM  

Ambivalence: Umm...was that supposed to make sense?


I don't think so. It looks like someone's shoveling out a bunch of science-sounding buzzwords to get military funding. This can be quite a profitable strategy.

RexTalionis: Is this really all that new? I've seen at least two SIGGRAPH demonstration videos/white papers on generation of an image that is not directly seen by the camera by reconstructing the image by calculating the light bounced off of it, the earliest one being in 2004.


Here's a recent one from MIT, which uses reflections from a femtosecond laser pulse to see around corners.
 
2012-07-16 09:24:24 AM  

Ivo Shandor: RexTalionis: Is this really all that new? I've seen at least two SIGGRAPH demonstration videos/white papers on generation of an image that is not directly seen by the camera by reconstructing the image by calculating the light bounced off of it, the earliest one being in 2004.

Here's a recent one from MIT, which uses reflections from a femtosecond laser pulse to see around corners.


Yes, I saw that one, but there is an earlier SIGGRAPH demo using a flash bounced off of a playing card around corners.
 
2012-07-16 09:43:41 AM  
TFA: Insiders say they'll soon be able to produce pictures of objects across continents, even on other planets, and with none of the distortion often seen in traditional photography.

Wait, are you telling me that this could become a reality?

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-07-16 09:44:21 AM  
www.baltimoresun.com

Duct tape -- is there nothing it couldn't do?
 
2012-07-16 09:45:48 AM  
PICS!! Or gtfo!
 
2012-07-16 09:51:13 AM  

RexTalionis: Is this really all that new? I've seen at least two SIGGRAPH demonstration videos/white papers on generation of an image that is not directly seen by the camera by reconstructing the image by calculating the light bounced off of it, the earliest one being in 2004.


That is not quite the same. Yours use photons that have hit the target, the device in the article use photons who's entangled parners have hit the target.
 
2012-07-16 10:00:25 AM  

Arkanaut: [www.baltimoresun.com image 600x399]

Duct tape -- is there nothing it couldn't do?


Pick you up at the airport?
 
2012-07-16 10:15:18 AM  
A story about a new photographic breakthrough that doesn't actually contain any sample photos is automatically TL;DR.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report