Quantum Telescope

[Brian O]

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.

 

[robin_astro]

No. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/01/02/no-we-still-cant-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light/

 

[Marvin Jenkins]

2 hours ago, robin_astro said:

No. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/01/02/no-we-still-cant-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light/

 

I am impressed with the forthright reply,.

Absolute certainty is a rare unicorn. 

Marv

[saac]

If quantum telescopes are possible will they come in bright red anodised finished?

Jim

[Adreneline]

6 minutes ago, saac said:

will they come in bright red anodised finished?

Well if they don't I certainly won't be buying one!

[Marvin Jenkins]

To quote #robin_astro..... No 

[robin_astro]

48 minutes ago, saac said:

If quantum telescopes are possible will they come in bright red anodised finished?

Jim

They can be any colour you like -  until you look at them  🙂

[Mr Spock]

The solution to everything is to put the word 'quantum' in front of it 

[saac]

32 minutes ago, Mr Spock said:

The solution to everything is to put the word 'quantum' in front of it 

Have you noticed though how it is often used incorrectly, particularly by politicians/marketing/media/journalist types.  We often hear that "this latest improvement represents a quantum leap in technology" .  That always makes me smile.  The origin of the term "quantum leap" in physics refers to the jump an electron takes when it travels from a lower energy state to a higher excited energy state (from one electron orbital level to another).  By definition, such movements are of course insanely small.  So your quantum leap in technological improvement is not exactly impressive  

Jim 

Edited June 6 by saac

[skybadger]

But the point is that it is discrete and distinct and not an analogue increment. So the the intent is that it is a 'step change' . Seems fair to me.

[saac]

1 hour ago, skybadger said:

But the point is that it is discrete and distinct and not an analogue increment. So the the intent is that it is a 'step change' . Seems fair to me.

I'm not so sure that is the point that they are trying to make though.  "We have made a discrete improvement" - yeah way to go, hurrah !   

QUANTUM LEAP | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

Jim 

Edited June 7 by saac

[Ouroboros]

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. 🙃

[saac]

1 minute ago, Ouroboros said:

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. 🙃

Well I'm always in two minds as to what to look at.  

Jim 

[Ouroboros]

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. 😀 

[Ouroboros]

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.😆 

Edited June 7 by Ouroboros

[Ouroboros]

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

[TiffsAndAstro]

15 hours ago, saac said:

If quantum telescopes are possible will they come in bright red anodised finished?

Jim

You won't know what colour it is until you observe it.

[robin_astro]

59 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

Sorry, but I don’t think I understand exactly what you’re suggesting here.

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

Edited June 7 by robin_astro

[vlaiv]

There could possibly be a device that we could name quantum telescope - although it would work a bit differently.

We now have telescopes - that collect light and form image. This light needs to be emitted from somewhere - either from object itself or some other source that illuminates that object. We must wait for that light to reach us.

Then there is different sort of device - radar or flash on our camera. We are the source of illumination - we send electromagnetic radiation as a source and look at what has been reflected.  In this case we need to wait for whole round trip to occur - EM radiation to travel to target to hit it, reflect and then travel all the way back.

Quantum telescope could possibly be device that would cut this time in half.

We could emit one of entangled particles and keep the other with ourselves. When sent particle hits an object - decoherence would occur and particle would end up in definite state. We could poll particle that we kept to ourselves using "weak measurement" to find out if it's still in super position of states or has it settled in particular state - which would signal decoherence of sent particle (and we could then calculate object location given speed and direction of sent particle).

This is of course just a theoretical idea - no idea if it would actually work.

Edited June 7 by vlaiv
missing word

[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. 

[robin_astro]

Just now, Ouroboros said:

Ah … OK.  I missed you’d posted a link.

I always cite my sources 😉

[TiffsAndAstro]

22 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

There could possibly be a device that we could name quantum telescope - although it would work a bit differently.

We now have telescopes - that collect light and form image. This light needs to be emitted from somewhere - either from object itself or some other source that illuminates that object. We must wait for that light to reach us.

Then there is different sort of device - radar or flash on our camera. We are the source of illumination - we send electromagnetic radiation as a source and look at what has been reflected.  In this case we need to wait for whole round trip to occur - EM radiation to travel to target to hit it, reflect and then travel all the way back.

Quantum telescope could possibly be device that would cut this time in half.

We could emit one of entangled particles and keep the other with ourselves. When sent particle hits an object - decoherence would occur and particle would end up in definite state. We could poll particle that we kept to ourselves using "weak measurement" to find out if it's still in super position of states or has it settled in particular state - which would signal decoherence of sent particle (and we could then calculate object location given speed and direction of sent particle).

This is of course just a theoretical idea - no idea if it would actually work.

I read somewhere a while back that some type of radar is being developed that used some technique sounds similar to this. 

[Marvin Jenkins]

22 hours ago, robin_astro said:

They can be any colour you like -  until you look at them  🙂

But you said 'NO' so how can anything that can't be, be any colour you like?

Marv

[saac]

5 minutes ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

But you said 'NO' so how can anything that can't be, be any colour you like?

Marv

When you are in the quantum realm all possibilities are in play until they are not!

Jim

[Marvin Jenkins]

Just now, saac said:

When you are in the quantum realm all possibilities are in play until they are not!

Jim

Sounds like a free pass to say that what ever I type in the quantum world could be true. Turns out that 87.23950% of my calculations are made up on the spot.

But in the quantum world they may well be correct.