It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I feel this news about Quantum Radar is related to recent turn of events

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2021 @ 07:44 PM
link   
This article explains how the Pentagon’s latest report of their Quantum Radar research basically is saying it’s going to be #-canned and offers no strategic advantages.

So…the latest detection technology, based upon detection by entangled particles, doesn’t work. Riiiight.

I think rather it’s going black. And will be used to track UAPs.

Article here:
www.thedrive.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2021 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Or maybe entanglement based tracking technology is more theoretical than practical, which anyone could have concluded without wasting tax money on idiotic toys.



posted on Jun, 4 2021 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Pokenaut

I don't buy into entanglement, I prescribe to the Einstein thought on that. Pretend that you and a friend buy a pair of gloves. You place one glove inside one box and the other glove inside another box. You take one box and travel to one side of the universe. Your friend takes the other box and travels to the other side. You open your box, and find the left glove. You know immediately that your friend is going to open the box and find the right glove. It does not mean that they communicated to each other instantaneously it just means one was always the right glove and the other was always the left glove.

- - -



posted on Jun, 4 2021 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Why do humans jump right to weaponizing every slice of cutting edge research?
What if all that energy and resources was focused on having a good time?
I have a hunch why the Aliens don't land.
They think we are a race of violent assholes.



posted on Jun, 4 2021 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: HONROC
a reply to: Pokenaut

I don't buy into entanglement, I prescribe to the Einstein thought on that. Pretend that you and a friend buy a pair of gloves. You place one glove inside one box and the other glove inside another box. You take one box and travel to one side of the universe. Your friend takes the other box and travels to the other side. You open your box, and find the left glove. You know immediately that your friend is going to open the box and find the right glove. It does not mean that they communicated to each other instantaneously it just means one was always the right glove and the other was always the left glove.

- - -


Quantum entanglement would involve both gloves, flipping off the two friends simultaneously...

Nature likes to do that sort of thing.




posted on Jun, 5 2021 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: madmac5150

originally posted by: HONROC
a reply to: Pokenaut

I don't buy into entanglement, I prescribe to the Einstein thought on that. Pretend that you and a friend buy a pair of gloves. You place one glove inside one box and the other glove inside another box. You take one box and travel to one side of the universe. Your friend takes the other box and travels to the other side. You open your box, and find the left glove. You know immediately that your friend is going to open the box and find the right glove. It does not mean that they communicated to each other instantaneously it just means one was always the right glove and the other was always the left glove.

- - -


Quantum entanglement would involve both gloves, flipping off the two friends simultaneously...

Nature likes to do that sort of thing.





(Sorry for the off-topic)

Thank you for that! Your post was legiterally the highlight of my stupid day.



posted on Jun, 5 2021 @ 02:17 AM
link   
"Quantum radar" used to be about detecting changes in distant mass using "quantum" sensing (ie monitoring very small changes in localised gravity gradients using a laser illuminated atom cloud) .

Not sure where this idea of beaming entangled pairs comes from....seem more "commsy" than "radary" to me.


Once you start beaming things they can be jammed//detected/suffer from localisation.

OG Quantum Radar was the hot shizzle because it was entirely passive and "none local" meaning your adversary had no way of knowing if you had one/had detected them.

Hmmm



posted on Jun, 5 2021 @ 03:06 AM
link   
It’s still a theory isn’t it?

Radar is based on radio waves, if you start lasers it’s not Radar?

So what part of the radar was using quantum theories?

Theories can turn out not to work in practice.



posted on Jun, 5 2021 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Homefree

Because if you can dream it up, you have superiority until an enemy nation does the same.


Use it or lose the competitive advantage.



posted on Jun, 5 2021 @ 04:40 AM
link   


So…the latest detection technology, based upon detection by entangled particles, doesn’t work. Riiiight.
I think rather it’s going black. And will be used to track UAPs.


The NRO is using neutrino light detectors to track UFOs,allegedly.



posted on Jun, 5 2021 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Pokenaut

I liked the movie about the guys who stare at goats, too.



edit on 5/6/2021 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2021 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: HONROC
a reply to: Pokenaut

I don't buy into entanglement, I prescribe to the Einstein thought on that. Pretend that you and a friend buy a pair of gloves. You place one glove inside one box and the other glove inside another box. You take one box and travel to one side of the universe. Your friend takes the other box and travels to the other side. You open your box, and find the left glove. You know immediately that your friend is going to open the box and find the right glove. It does not mean that they communicated to each other instantaneously it just means one was always the right glove and the other was always the left glove.

- - -


Your post demonstrates a decent analogy of entanglement, and shows that you understand basic principles behind it.
Good job mate.



posted on Jun, 6 2021 @ 11:03 AM
link   
Didn't Einstein reluctantly concede to the concept of entanglement (his "spooky action at a distance")? While people can readily use Quantum Mechanical equations to predict lab results, nobody understands Q-M (with the possible exception of Dr. Matti Pitkanen whose TGD-physics gives a basis for G-R, Q-M, and Consciousness without the need for extra dimensions => www.stealthskater.com... ).

Eric Davis got a (USAF?) grant to study teleportation and found that it could be valid for quantum-sized objects.

Famous missing person Philip Taylor Kramer's father Ray proposed his 'The Equation' which could instantaneously communicate between any 2 spots in the Universe. Taylor achieved fame by finally offering a math solution to 'The Equation'. Ray said that it might even permit biological teleportation => www.stealthskater.com... . (Both Kramers are dead now.)

UNITEL got a patent for their quantum laser lens which reportedly would achieve Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling/Entanglement => www.stealthskater.com... . (Maybe that's what happened to the Eldridge destroyer or the minesweeper ship was involved in the Philadelphia Experiment. All those rotating pulsing magnetic fields made it look like a giant fuzzy electron/photon subject to Quantum Mechanics rules and not Relativity => www.stealthskater.com... ).

The UNITEL design was inspired by a real-life UFO sighting in the Cascade mountains. Its lens had separate Red, Green, and Blue sections. Two of those rotated in one direction and the other in the opposite direction. The entire lens itself also rotated. (This sounds like what Lazar described (www.stealthskater.com... ) in his examinations. Each of the "gravity amplifiers" rotated while the circular base to which they were attached also rotated. I have no idea where 'Omicron' and 'Delta' configurations came from.)



posted on Jun, 6 2021 @ 09:26 PM
link   
I'm not surprised they didn't see any benefits of quantum radar, but the benefits of quantum sensing, quantum computing, and quantum communication are more clear, especially the last two.


originally posted by: HONROC
a reply to: Pokenaut

I don't buy into entanglement, I prescribe to the Einstein thought on that. Pretend that you and a friend buy a pair of gloves. You place one glove inside one box and the other glove inside another box. You take one box and travel to one side of the universe. Your friend takes the other box and travels to the other side. You open your box, and find the left glove. You know immediately that your friend is going to open the box and find the right glove. It does not mean that they communicated to each other instantaneously it just means one was always the right glove and the other was always the left glove.

- - -

a reply to: Archivalist
That sounds logical, but, that's not what experiments show. That explanation suggests a definite state exists before the object is measured, but numerous experiments show that's not the case.

One example which gives you some insight are experiments done with multiple polarizing filters. This is a very short video giving a hint of the issue without explaining it fully:



The following video shows similar things with polarizing filters, but it explains more about how experiments show the indeterminate quantum nature of unmeasured particles, not deterministic as your hypothesis suggests.

Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox


Even though Albert Einstein (together with collaborators in the EPR Paradox paper) wanted to show that quantum mechanics must be incomplete because it was nonlocal (he didn't like "spooky action at a distance"), John Bell managed to prove that any local real hidden variable theory would have to satisfy certain simple statistical properties that quantum mechanical experiments (and the theory that describes them) violate. Since then, GHZ and others have managed to extend the theoretical work, and Alain Aspect performed the first Bell test experiment in the late 1980s.


That gets a little more technical, and the following video for students of quantum mechanics describes even more experiments relating to superposition (meaning quantum particles not having a definite state before they are measured):

MIT 8.04 Quantum Physics I, 1. Introduction to Superposition

Regarding the statement "I prescribe to the Einstein thought on that", one important thing to keep in mind is the environment in which Einstein generated his thoughts; he was always guided by experimental results and in his time there weren't experimental results which seemed to contradict his thoughts, but, physicists claim the Bell Inequalities experiments have changed that. Earlier experiments testing Bell's inequalities were said to have loopholes so were not considered conclusive, but more recently claims have been made of loophole-free tests which claim to finally prove Einstein was wrong about quantum weirdness.

Global Bell Test Proved Einstein Wrong about Quantum Mechanics, Again

This claims to be a loophole-free experiment:

Quantum weirdness proved real in first loophole-free experiment


It’s official: the universe is weird. Our everyday experience tells us that distant objects cannot influence each other, and don’t disappear just because no one is looking at them. Even Albert Einstein was dead against such ideas because they clashed so badly with our views of the real world.

But it turns out we’re wrong – the quantum nature of reality means, on some level, these things can and do actually happen. A groundbreaking experiment puts the final nail in the coffin of our ordinary “local realism” view of the universe, settling an argument that has raged through physics for nearly a century.


One other note, there are various interpretations of quantum mechanics. If you use the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics (universal wavefunction), that gets us a little closer to what HONROC describes, than does the "superposition" interpretation taught in textbooks. But that come at the cost of having some even more weird features in the Everett interpretation.

So no matter which interpretation is considered, all of them lead to some weirdness in one way or another, in order to match what we see in experiments. So far it doesn't seem possible to come up with an explanation like the one HONROC made without weirdness, which matches experiments. Explanations without any apparent weirdness don't seem to match experiments, that's what the latest experiments claim to be confirming.



posted on Jun, 6 2021 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Pokenaut

Quantum radar, as it stands now, is extremely short ranged. In 2014, the maximum range of quantum radar was less than 10 miles. The Chinese claims of having an active quantum radar in 2015 put the range at 61 miles. It's not surprising that it's not going anywhere. About all you'd detect with it is the weapons released and heading towards the radar.



posted on Jun, 6 2021 @ 09:50 PM
link   
The only thing worse than listening to a physicist trying to explain quantum mechanics, is a layman trying to explain it.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join