Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday June 11 2021, @04:14PM   Printer-friendly

Researchers create quantum microscope that can see the impossible:

Professor Warwick Bowen, from UQ's Quantum Optics Lab and the ARC Centre of Excellence for Engineered Quantum Systems (EQUS), said it was the first entanglement-based sensor with performance beyond the best possible existing technology.

"This breakthrough will spark all sorts of new technologies -- from better navigation systems to better MRI machines, you name it," Professor Bowen said.

"Entanglement is thought to lie at the heart of a quantum revolution.

(...) "The quantum entanglement in our microscope provides 35 per cent improved clarity without destroying the cell, allowing us to see minute biological structures that would otherwise be invisible.

"The benefits are obvious -- from a better understanding of living systems, to improved diagnostic technologies." Professor Bowen said there were potentially boundless opportunities for quantum entanglement in technology. "Entanglement is set to revolutionise computing, communication and sensing," he said.

(...) "This opens the door for some wide-ranging technological revolutions."

Journal Reference:
Catxere A. Casacio, Lars S. Madsen, Alex Terrasson, et al. Quantum-enhanced nonlinear microscopy, Nature (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03528-w)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @04:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @04:44PM (#1144285)

    Oh dear, I'm rapidly filling up my Bullshit Bingo card.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @04:58PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @04:58PM (#1144293)

    So this impossible thing is not impossible then?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @05:02PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @05:02PM (#1144297)

      It's literally unpossible.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Tork on Friday June 11 2021, @05:09PM

      by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 11 2021, @05:09PM (#1144298)
      "I'm gonna show off how smart I am by pretending I don't understand what someone is saying. Bask in my inflexibility!"
      --
      🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @05:26PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @05:26PM (#1144308)

      It's not like they spotted the Democrats actually keeping one of their campaign promises, that would have been impossible. At least the GOP tries to do some of the horrible things they promise while running.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @06:05PM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @06:05PM (#1144322)
        Like making Mexico pay for the wall? Stimulus checks? Locking Hillary up? Not having time for golf? Banning foreign lobbyists? Repealing Obamacare? Renegotiate Iran deal? Eliminate Common Core? Removing all undocumented immigrants? Eliminating federal debt in 8 years?
        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @06:26PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @06:26PM (#1144331)

          I didn't say they kept all of their promises, but they did start building the wall and they did somewhat renegotiate NAFTA. Biden has basically done nothing that he's promised. He hasn't given any student loan relief, he didn't give the people $2k checks immediately, he isn't going to raise taxes on the wealthiest or give us a public option. In fact, he's not even fighting for any of it.

          The GOP does terrible things, but they do have a better track record of actually following through on their promises. Even with controlling both chambers of congress and the whitehouse, they've still not even met the bare minimum of what they promised.

          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @07:19PM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @07:19PM (#1144356)
            > but they did start building the wall and they did somewhat renegotiate NAFTA. ... The GOP does terrible things, but they do have a better track record of actually following through on their promises.

            They also prioritized a supreme court justice over pandemic relief, attempted an insurrection they voted to not investigate, and a whole slew of other things that really should be worrying you if you've ever used the term 'founding fathers' any time in the last twenty years. The best thought you're using to keep you comfortable is: "Biden hasn't don't anything even though he's only served an eighth of his term AND it started with trying to burn the Capitol down over hurt feelz about the election."

            Touting the success of the GOP during the last administration up until now is like displaying falsified Time Magazine cover with your picture on it, it only impresses the people who don't know better.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @08:37PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @08:37PM (#1144382)

              You're an idiot then, the fact of the matter is that they get done at least some of what they promise rather than hiding behind the parliamentarian. I never said it wasn't monstrous, just that they actually went about doing some portion of what they promise when the democrats won't even pretend to try.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @08:52PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @08:52PM (#1144388)
                Oh yeah, I forgot to include the word 'obstructionist'. Thanks for reminding me.

                > I never said it wasn't monstrous...

                I appreciate the unintentional honesty. ;)
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @09:11PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @09:11PM (#1144390)

                Wow, what a dumbass. When he says that he's going to build a great big beautiful wall and that it "won't cost you a cent" because Mexico would pay for it, and says that it would only cost $8B and take 3.5 years to build, then when it gets under way, it cost many more billions, most of it is just replacing fencing anyway, and he pays for some of it by stealing over $3B from the DoD, you say that is getting done what they promise? Oooh, what about promising to "take care of" the Dreamers? Releasing his taxes? Ha, that was a good one! Surrounding himself with the "best and the brightest"? Hoooo, good times, good times.

                How long has Biden been in office, and you're bitching about all of the promises he broke? Really? What specific ones are you talking about anyway?

                By the way, what promises did Trump keep? It is a wonderful glib slogan "promises made, promises kept", but they NEVER tell you what promises were made AND kept. You can't count illegal executive orders--they have to be real actions, not pretend ones.

    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday June 11 2021, @07:43PM

      by krishnoid (1156) on Friday June 11 2021, @07:43PM (#1144363)

      The researchers did use the term "impossible", along with "whoa", and "trippy".

      In an entirely unrelated story, the researchers were also "micro"dosing psychedelics at the time.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @05:00PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @05:00PM (#1144295)

    The impossible they are talking about are light diffraction limits.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system [wikipedia.org]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution_microscopy [wikipedia.org]

    Now, you can add quantum entanglement to the toolkit.

    Yes, there is a lot of words on the bullshit bingo card, but in this case it's rather justified. This technique adds the equivalent of Heisenberg Compensators we see in Star Trek to make the transporters work. Or equivalent of the infinite zoom with enhance in CSI. These diffraction limits were rather hard limits and now, you go past them

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @05:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @05:32PM (#1144311)

      If Heisenberg was alive he'd say: "it was only a principle."

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by vux984 on Friday June 11 2021, @06:05PM (3 children)

      by vux984 (5045) on Friday June 11 2021, @06:05PM (#1144323)

      "These diffraction limits were rather hard limits and now, you go past them"

      More like you go around them.

      "This technique adds the equivalent of Heisenberg Compensators we see in Star Trek to make the transporters work."

      Is that really the best analog though? Is it really going past a hard limit and doing the theoretically impossible? Or is it just doing something else. You know, like using a radio to deliver communications that are impossibly faster than what you could do with a courier on a horse? I mean, horses only go so fast, and even getting them to a significant fraction of the speed of light between LA and Boston runs into all kinds of very serious issues. But I'd hardly call radio technology something that lets us do the impossible though, even if it does let us go past the hard limits of horse carried messages.

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday June 11 2021, @07:11PM (1 child)

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 11 2021, @07:11PM (#1144350)
        We all use an imprecise language but we love nitpicking it as if it should always be literal. One could say that a camera with a 640 by 480 sensor could never take a megapixel photo. It's impossible because the resources aren't there, right? What if you take multiple photos and stitch them together? What if you slowly turn the camera as its recording video and use that information to interpret the subpixels into a larger image? Does that mean it's no longer impossible to take a megapixel image with this camera or does that mean it's still impossible but with a workaround?

        I don't have a firm position on this either way, but I do think nitpicking it without defining the scope first is just wankery.
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by vux984 on Friday June 11 2021, @10:49PM

          by vux984 (5045) on Friday June 11 2021, @10:49PM (#1144407)

          We all use an imprecise language but we love nitpicking it as if it should always be literal.

          I'm actually not intending to nitpick at all here to be honest.

          I like your camera example because its a good illustration.

          Yes, a 640x480 camera sensor can be used in creative ways to synthesize higher resolution photos in a variety of ways by taking multiple 640x480 photos and then synthesizing them together in different ways. It's impressive, but its not doing anything that anyone thinks is theoretically impossible. You have more information than you had before so you can do more because of it. Its that simple.

          However, given a single bitmap image file of a subject from taken by that 640x480 camera there is no CSI enhance button that can pull the reflection of someones face off a button on their handbag, or look around a corner and see who was casting that shadow. That information simply isn't present in that photo, and that's all the data you have; its impossible to extract information that isn't there without having to invent some radical new math about information theory, and in turn radical new physics that violate the laws of thermodynamics.

          To me the 'heisenberg compensator' is an example of the latter. It's just not happening... and if it does then yeah, EVERYTHING WE KNOW JUST GOT TOSSED OUT THE WINDOW! While this imaging technique is an example of the former, its neat and impressive, but it fits pretty comfortably into existing physics without any drama.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 12 2021, @08:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 12 2021, @08:15AM (#1144532)

        There you go comparing radios and horses again. :)

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @09:25PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @09:25PM (#1144392)

      No, they are not talking about diffraction limits. They are talking about getting around shot noise to improve signal-to-noise ratios. To get good SNRs, you can crank up the signal, which in this case would be cranking up the laser flux which leads to photodamage of the specimen. They are using entangled photons, which allows them to use their correlations to give SNRs that are under the photodamage level, thus allowing them to look at more sensitive things like molecular bonds. The "impossible" barrier they've broken is the photodamage limit.

      I would not make comparisons to "Heisenberg Compensators" and other things that implies Star Trek-like leaps in technological development.

      By the way, the "impossible" barrier you link to, the diffraction limit, was broken a long time ago with metasurfaces. They allow you to do sub-diffraction-limited imaging subject to a few caveats.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Snospar on Friday June 11 2021, @05:44PM (1 child)

    by Snospar (5366) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 11 2021, @05:44PM (#1144313)

    Surely they could have mocked up some sort of "before and after" photos to demonstrate their quantum capabilities?

    --
    Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @06:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @06:00PM (#1144320)

      Oh, they did... but you haven't got the quantum tech to see their powerpoint.

  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Friday June 11 2021, @06:45PM

    by looorg (578) on Friday June 11 2021, @06:45PM (#1144339)

    I guess I'm in good company with Einstein (also my hair is starting to look like that image after this whole COVID thing and not going out much, I call it the covid-mullet) cause this whole Quantum thing is scary weird but unlike Einstein I don't understand it at all.

  • (Score: 2, Touché) by SomeGuy on Friday June 11 2021, @07:20PM

    by SomeGuy (5632) on Friday June 11 2021, @07:20PM (#1144357)

    Microscope That Can See the Impossible

    So, it can view a web developer's brain?

    Viewing artificially requires a smart phone "app", doesn't it?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @07:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 11 2021, @07:48PM (#1144364)

    Kept those University of Queensland profs off the beach long enough to get some work done

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 12 2021, @03:33PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 12 2021, @03:33PM (#1144584)

    the problem with calling something a "hard limit" is that in no time a cult pops up that has as its sole purpose of keeping the limit "hard".
    bonfires and education and laws and " social norms" are enacted 'cause we want something real and touchy and HARD to believe in and stoping getting a headache from thinking too much!

(1)