Ouroboros

9 minutes ago, robin_astro said:

The idea is an old one which crops up from time to time. You make a two boxes of entangled pairs of particles and send one box on the spacecraft. You then set the quantum state of the particles in the distant box eg to represent an image. When you observe the home box you find a negative image of the distant scene transmitted instantaneously.  It does not work because by forcing a quantum state on the distant particles you destroy the entanglement.  The only thing you can do is look at the original quantum state of the particles which is random so contains no information. You only know they were correlated when you return (at less than light speed) to compare the results. The Forbes article starting 2/3 down starting at "Where did our plan fall apart" describes exactly this suggestion and why it does not work. (In a simplistic way, the author is only an astronomer after all 😉 , but he also has a link there to his quantum physicist friend who goes into more detail

Ah … OK.  I missed you’d posted a link.  Your summary explanation is more convincing that my “it don’t work, mate”. Thanks. 

Oh … and @Brian O - welcome to the forum!  

22 hours ago, Brian O said:

In theory, an entangled particle far out into space would instantaneously transmit its state to its equivalent on Earth.

An array of paired particles exposed to light should therefore be capable of sending a negative image to the equivalent array on Earth, thus producing a photographic image.

The assumption here is that the entire system would be in an indeterminate state until observed by an astronomer.

The alternative would be to release a shutter at a pre-determined time, after which the image would be viewable.

All of this would need vast resources and a journey time of several decades to get anywhere close to the nearest stars.

Also, it is not known how long each pair of particles could remain in an entangled state.

Sets of three colour cells, as in a television, would be able to produce a colour image.

The next step up would be a series of exposures from further arrays to produce a video picture. We might even see planets orbitting a nearby star.

It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

 

Sorry, but I don’t think I understand exactly what you’re suggesting here.  As I understand it, entangled particles cannot be used to send information instantaneously from one place to another. 

At first I thought you were suggesting looking at entangled particles (photons presumably) arriving from a distant star system. Even accepting that some photons might be entangled, I am not clear that you can separate or distinguish entangled photons from the normal ones. Not with a detector at one end anyway. Maybe a proper physicist can help with that one.

Then I wondered whether you envisaged sending to the distant star system a probe capable of creating entangled particles, half of which would be directed towards earth.   Well, as already said, no information can be sent this way - including the instantaneous sending of images.  You might as well send the probe to take images to relay back. Assuming you’re willing to wait a few thousand years for the pics. 

Or maybe you were just having a laugh.😆 

Mine’s got a hint of Heisenberg about it - skies can’t be perfectly clear and I’m free to do some astronomy at the same time. 😀 

Don’t we all have quantum telescopes if certain interpretations of QM are correct?  The astronomical object doesn’t exist or rather exists in a superposition of states  until the observer at the eyepiece causes its wave function to collapse. 🙃

I like it very much. The soap bubble is an elusive object isn’t it? I’ve looked for it and not found it on my images of the Crescent.  You need your 24 hours of data to bring it out. Excellent image, very nicely processed. 

5 hours ago, Tiny Clanger said:

I think it's a variation on L.G.M.

Yep. 😀

LBM? 

Fantastic.  

46 minutes ago, Arcturus- said:

Stellarium has BlueWalker 3 as below the horizon at that time.

OK. Not that then. 

Could it be the Blue Walker satellite?  The array might look blue from certain angles. 

I’m with you now! That’s horrible. Can you change your display ratio? 

Nope, still not with you.  

Do you not see this? I’ve taken a preview. No stars obviously because the scope is indoors.  If I touch the screen all graphics disappear leaving only the preview. 
 

11 minutes ago, Elp said:

I second this as it's not wise, though I've installed the latest on one of my airs so I can use my Sony camera, seems to have worked for that session fine... I still don't like how the main screen preview is not full screen, why ever did they change this from at least v1.9 which shows a full screen image?

Oh, I’m puzzled by that. I think it preview is full frame. Maybe I don’t understand what you mean. 
I am now on version V2.1.2-11.01. 

I finally got around yesterday to doing this update ….. and boy what a mistake. 

Repeat after me: Do not download a software update late in the evening, when you have just set up your rig, and just before an evening’s  imaging on a beautifully clear night.  And again: Do not download a software upda…… etc repeat 20 times .  

Following the update the Air and the AM5 mount wouldn’t talk to one another. I was too tired and too cross after an hour or so of faffing about to think straight. So I packed up and came inside. 

All sorted now after an hour or so of faffing this afternoon. I had to update the firmware on the mount and reset the Wi-Fi settings in the mount and ASIair so they would talk to one another.  Duh! 

It looks like it might be a clear night. Where I am I’ve only got a ASKAR FRA 60mm 300mm fl telescope and ASI2600 OSC +dual band filter (4.5°x3° FOV)  

But what to image? 

There are no large nebula in the region of the sky I can image which (due to trees and houses)  is near the zenith and down towards the celestial pole. Recently I’ve imaged wide fields of the Coma Berenices and the area around M101.

Any suggestions?  Ta. 

Brilliant. I am always amazed at SGL members’ DIY skills.  Doing stuff like this isn’t just putting up a shelf is it? That’s about my level.  
 

…. except it wouldn’t be. Level that is. 

Excellent pics, @Scosmico.  The foreground bushes really make them even more effective. 

Interesting. I think (maybe) that’s the first time I’ve read someone boring a hole for their pier on SGL rather than digging a hole. 
 

How much do borers cost to hire?

I enjoyed reading The Strangest Man a few years ago.  Generally I am not a great fan of biographies because although I find their background and early years interesting as they find their way to fame, I usually lose  interest once they ‘make it’ in their chosen career as an actor or politician or whatever.   Contrary to this I found this biography of Dirac a fascinating read all the way through - probably because I am interested in the physics and the history of science.  It is well written too. 

The advantage as I see it as someone who sets up each time is that when I plonk the mount down it’s good to start with the mount  roughly level because it means the declination won’t be too far out when I start polar aligning. But it’s not necessary, no. On the other hand, I guess you wouldn’t want a pier looking too wonky would you?  

2 hours ago, Mr Spock said:

Forgot about this. iPhone snap through the FC100 and 3.5mm LVW.

Hand held so not well framed or focused.

I think that’s pretty good. Captures what it is - a real view through a telescope eyepiece. 

I am by no means an authority on this.  I asked myself the same question and decided to keep the original lights, flats and dark flats and master files. I delete all the intermediate files. I can always regenerate them if need be. I use a master dark from my darks library.  I keep the log files too. 

Arguably it’s not necessary to keep the flats and dark flats either, as long as the masters look OK. 

Yep. There’s a lot of good stuff on Radio 4.  I often listen to TLS in the car on the way somewhere on Tuesday mornings.

Sometimes Melvyn Bragg’s In Our Time discusses something scientific.  MB isn’t a scientist but he must be very well informed to ask such interesting questions. 

7 minutes ago, Vroobel said:

Haha, should I understand that I guessed properly (2600MC, not 6200MC) ?

Well guessed.  So the “waist” are the vents.