Slashdot Mirror


China Says It Has Developed a Quantum Radar That Can See Stealth Aircraft (digitaltrends.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Digital Trends: At a recent air show in the city of Zhuhai, state-owned Chinese defense giant China Electronics Technology Group Corporation displayed what it claims to be a quantum radar that's able to detect even the stealthiest of stealth aircraft. The company claims to have been working on the technology for years, and to have tested it for the first time in 2015. In principle, a quantum radar functions like a regular radar -- only that instead of sending out a single beam of electromagnetic energy, it uses two split streams of entangled photons. Only one of these beams is sent out, but due to a quirk of quantum physics both streams will display the same changes, despite being potentially miles apart. As a result, by looking at the stream which remains back home it's possible to work out what has happened to the other beam. According to a brochure from the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation, the new quantum radar could "solve the traditional bottleneck [of] detection of low observable target detection, survival under electronic warfare conditions, [and] platform load limitations."

211 comments

  1. Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    They wouldn't admit this to the world if they really had it, and it really worked. Sounds like another Chinese hack to me.

    1. Re:Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so fast...

      "Starwars" missile protection: Announced and bragged about before deployment.
      Stealth airplanes: Announced and bragged about before deployment.
      Anti-stealth tech: Announced and bragged about before? deployment.
       

    2. Re: Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stealth planes were operational before announcement

    3. Re: Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do d

    4. Re: Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This might be too.

    5. Re: Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, also there's no way they developed this unless they hacked some country with real talent.

    6. Re:Riiiight by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If a country believes that war is likely or inevitable, it is better to hide their capability so enemies are unprepared.

      If a country is primarily interested in deterring war, it is better to advertise new capabilities so enemies are intimidated.

      Historically, America has tended to follow the first strategy, and keeps new developments secret.

      Most of America's adversaries have tended to follow the second strategy. During the Cold War, Russia often tried to look stronger than they really were. Today, China does the same.

    7. Re:Riiiight by N1AK · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure you can evidence your assertions. There are plenty of other hypothesis that would explain different countries reasons for being more or less secretive. China may simply be aware that it can't keep this secret from western intelligence so it may as well announce it and brag as there's no benefit to keeping quiet. Alternatively, based on China's aggressive geopolitics it is also plausible, and I'd go as far as likely, that they see more value in intimidating its neighbours into accepting China's demands by trying to undermine their confidence that America may be able to assist them if China did make a move against them.

    8. Re: Riiiight by michelcolman · · Score: 0

      If this worked, it would allow faster than light communication. Send one half of an entangled pair of beams to someone (traveling at the speed of light, but that’s just the setup, not the actual communication), then the recipient disturbs the beam (or not), and the other party instantaneously notices. Nope, not possible.

    9. Re: Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can do something similar with a pair of gloves, a box, and some postage. Totally possible, you unimaginative clod!

    10. Re: Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually no. The information between two entanglement particles only propagates from one to the other at the speed of light.

    11. Re: Riiiight by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's not how entanglement works. Maybe they are using some other kind of quantum effect. But entanglement actually does work instantaneously, faster than light. It just works in such a way that you cannot use it for communication. If you measure the particles at both ends, you will get the same result instantaneously (while you can prove that the decoherence occurred at that exact moment, not earlier, and therefore some kind of "information" must have traveled FTL) but you have no control over that result, and you cannot tell whether or not the other party made a measurement. So you cannot use it to send a message.

    12. Re:Riiiight by jools33 · · Score: 1

      China is smart and they have put their quantum stealth radar into a black box, as a result they are not sure if it exists or not.

    13. Re:Riiiight by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your cause is a bit off.

      If a country thinks it can win a potential war, it is better to hide their capability so enemies are unprepared.

      If a country doesn't think it can win a potential war, it is better to advertise (claimed) newer capabilities so enemies are intimidated.

      While the latter does mean the country will try to avoid a war, the former does not necessarily mean the country expects or wishes to go to war.

      This posturing is kinda moot though since China and the U.S. will never go to war, since that would result in nuclear annihilation for both sides. The most they'll do is get into a proxy war with each country supporting opposing sides in someone else's war. Just like the U.S. and USSR did in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc. (Actually i doubt China will even go that far, since unlike the USSR they do a huge amount of trade with the U.S. Which hopefully has taught them that economic competition is constructive, whereas military competition is destructive. They may pick opposite sides in a conflict, but it won't become a full-scale proxy war.)

      As for China's artificial island, the U.S. doesn't need military power to defeat it. All it needs to do is help the Philippines and Vietnam build their own islands just outside Chinese waters. That'll put China in a position where if they insist artificial islands legally extend territorial waters, then the new Philippine and Vietnamese islands move the border of China's waters to halfway between those islands and China's mainland (basically cutting China's territorial waters in half). Then the U.S. can help those two countries build new islands just outside the new border for Chinese waters. Repeat until China's territorial waters only extend a few miles from shore. We could do this for a fraction of the cost of the F35.

    14. Re:Riiiight by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      western intelligence hahahahahahahaha

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of America's adversaries have tended to follow the second strategy. During the Cold War, Russia often tried to look stronger than they really were. Today, China does the same.

      I heard a saying at some point: "Russia is never as strong as it appears. And Russia is never as weak as it appears."

    16. Re: Riiiight by Unnamed+Chickenheart · · Score: 1

      Would that be avoided by using two pairs, one for each direction?

      Thus you'd "send"* your data with one pair and receive acknowledge on the other.

      So it'd not be full duplex. You might need 4 pairs for that?

      *Technically you don't send any particles so it feels a bit wrong to use that verb. Perhaps 'flip' as in "I'll flip the document over to you later"?

      --
      urd
    17. Re:Riiiight by gtvr · · Score: 1

      Just don't make a Doomsday device and keep it a secret. The whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you *keep* it a *secret*! Why didn't you tell the world, EH?

    18. Re: Riiiight by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If this worked, it would allow faster than light communication. Send one half of an entangled pair of beams to someone (traveling at the speed of light, but that’s just the setup, not the actual communication), then the recipient disturbs the beam (or not), and the other party instantaneously notices. Nope, not possible.

      Mod parent up. Thread over.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re: Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Humans are soooooo unwilling to think beyond 3 dimensions.

      On other dimensions, the photons might be right next to each other. Just imagine there is a dimension where all particles are very close to one another... moving data through this dimension may be how we do near instant communication to colonies on other planets.

      On the other hand... the idea of using entangled photons as locator beacons in this other dimension would mean data could be transmitted without being broadcast over an eavesdroppable network, so maybe it will never be discovered.

    20. Re: Riiiight by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter how you do it. Entanglement cannot be used to send information. It can be used for encryption, though. Send entangled photons to two parties, they measure the photons so they each get the same, totally random key, and then they use that key to encrypt and decrypt a message sent via traditional means.

      But doing something to the photons at one end and somehow directly affecting the other end is not possible. So you cannot tell whether or not a radar beam hit an aircraft by observing the entangled particles on the ground.

    21. Re: Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did ET tell you this? Is Elvis there with you in the room right now?

    22. Re:Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hilarious that anyone would brag about detecting US tech from the 1970s.

    23. Re: Riiiight by TheSouthernDandy · · Score: 2

      The phrase "faster than light" is kinda misleading in these discussions. An entangled pair of things can't be expressed as a product state; from a certain point of view, it is no longer two things. So even though you can poke here and apparently have an effect there, it's one object (composed of two strongly coupled objects) reacting.

      The division into photons 1 and 2 is artificial when they're entangled. Any "impulse" that were traveling wouldn't be doing so through the vacuum or environment between the photons. So, is it "faster than light"? Only from the fiction that something must move through the space between them.

      So, wormholes, all the way down.

    24. Re:Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asian culture traditionally favours a combination of both, i.e deterring war by advertising new capabilities, not all of them accurate, while hiding true capabilities to prepare for the inevitable. Only a rigid mindset assumes that only one of these strategies can be adopted at any one time.

    25. Re: Riiiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Star wars was a trick to get the soviets to bankrupt themselves, it was in their best interests to announce it

  2. Hmm by alzoron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A beam seems like a really inefficient way of searching for something in 3D space. Also, if only one beam is sent out what happens to the second entangled beam? Photons aren't known for sitting still.

    1. Re:Hmm by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      Whatever you do, DON'T CROSS THE BEAMS!!! That would be Bad(TM).

    2. Re:Hmm by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

      It's not a steady-state beam, it's a highly directional pulse.

      --
      "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    3. Re:Hmm by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well it is necessary for out in actual space but in atmosphere, it is largely a waste of time. Far more efficient to create atmosphere mapping radar, which maps the entire atmosphere with in it's range, basically what the air is doing where and when. So detect clouds, flocks of birds, aircraft exhaust and of course the atmospheric hole aircraft create and so not only detect planes for targeting but also weather radar, more needs to be done in efficiency of military spending, military use only should be an anathema to cost conscious governments, as much as possible military vehicles also need to fill civilian roles, in actual use, not just empty marketing.

      That total atmosphere mapping, than also going into civilian aircraft control and navigation. Whilst the system is vulnerable to missile strike from range, those missiles are of course just as vulnerable to counter strike, not just the missile but the launching aircraft. Accurate atmosphere mapping, will expose everything within range, no hiding from that. Those patterns of disturbance in the atmosphere, mainly water vapour density and it's changes, could accurately define exactly what created those disturbances and it's motion and orientation. Doesn't work in space though, needs to be able to accurately map water vapour density and probably carbon dioxide to work.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean mapping like the story earlier today about keeping a balloon stationary with varying wind conditions?

    5. Re:Hmm by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      It's not a steady-state beam, it's a highly directional pulse.

      So... You need to already know where the plane is in order to use it? Seems a little paradoxical for a radar...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    6. Re:Hmm by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not at all. In modern world, warfare generally uses two different radar types - search radar which you can see spinning around in at 360 degrees and fire control radar that uses a directional pulse/beam. Problem with stealth is that it can be tracked by radar with low accuracy, i.e. you can get the general direction where aircraft is on your search radar, but you can't get a high accuracy track needed for fire control radar to be effective. So detection of stealth aircraft isn't a problem for modern radar systems. Tracking them accurately is.

      That means that if you can develop a fire control radar that can produce a track accurate enough for a missile to be effective, stealth becomes effectively reduced or even nullified for purposes of anti-air warfare.

    7. Re:Hmm by greylion3 · · Score: 1

      A radar is usually a transmitter on a rotating platform - it 'sweeps' its beam through a full circle every few seconds.
      The detector recieves an echo after the beam hits something, and registers the direction it came from, as well as the time it took for it to return.
      Half the time multiplied by light speed equals the distance of the object.

      If this quantum radar is pulse-based, it needs to be sending out a lot, probably in the billions per second range, to be able to use it like a classic radar.

      Also; if it works: Good bye no-FTL information transfer.

      --
      Privacy begins with ..
    8. Re:Hmm by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Some problems with this: Radar that reflects off water in the air returns a sum of all the water within range, not just 1 spot in the air. You need a lot of signal processing to make a 3D model from that. Radar that reflects off the atmosphere loses signal strength rapidly, giving short range. These things need very high gain, meaning weak to jamming and spoofing.

    9. Re:Hmm by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      How do you think radar works, son?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:Hmm by jittles · · Score: 1

      Whatever you do, DON'T CROSS THE BEAMS!!! That would be Bad(TM).

      Thank god you're nothing but one of those fake Ghostbusters you see on TV. You'd probably cross the streams and kill us all if you ever tried to man up and bust ghosts for real.

    11. Re:Hmm by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Also; if it works: Good bye no-FTL information transfer.

      Nonsense. The knowledge that the system detected an enemy aircraft still reaches the radar operators no faster than the speed of light.

  3. Err, entanglement breaking? by locater16 · · Score: 2

    I'm fairly certain entanglement is incredibly easy to break. While you can, in practice, beam stable entangled photons to a satellite, requiring enough going sideways through the atmosphere to then bounce off an object to then be read out without breaking the majority of entanglement seems unlikely. It's hard to enough to maintain entanglement in the extremely isolated confines of a quantum computer, just flinging it out into the atmosphere seems a lot harder?

    1. Re:Err, entanglement breaking? by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      It is a lot harder, but it isn't necessarily impossible. With a steady enough stream of entangled pairs, statistically, you'll have some that remain coherent, potentially enough to get radar image (the decohered pairs become noise in the signal, so it becomes a noise filtering problem). I say potentially. If this tech is real, it's a significant advance, but I'd want to see independent verification before I believed it. Unless I was a stealth airplane pilot... I might decide to assume it works and proceed accordingly. Luckily, I'm not a pilot. :-)

  4. DWave by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dwave also has developed a 1000 qubit quantum computer. And Musk is building a hyperloop tunnel system and a Mars colony. And soon we will have AI and self-driving cars. We live in exciting times, my friends.

    1. Re:DWave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And women are suddenly going to be just as interested in men's things as men are, and men are going to knit and suckle babies just like women.

      The future's bright, the future's homogenized.
      ( And fusion-powered. )

    2. Re:DWave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we get articles every week here about how self-driving cars aren't all they're hyped up to be, what makes you think they're anything remotely close to soon?

    3. Re:DWave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of these things is not like the others. Quantum computers are probably impossible. The others are difficult, and perhaps not cost-effective, but they are possible.

    4. Re:DWave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk is building a hyperloop tunnel system TO the Mars colony.

      Have to get the facts straight.

    5. Re:DWave by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The future's bright, the future's amimojonized.

      FTFY.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:DWave by reboot246 · · Score: 1

      "The future's bright, the future's homogenized.
      ( And fusion-powered. )"

      And 3-D printed!!

    7. Re:DWave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      General Fusion is about a 15 minute drive from DWave.

    8. Re:DWave by Immerman · · Score: 1

      If he's going to pull that off it'll have to be anything but straight - in fact it will have to bend in directions not currently known to man, as all the (hypothetical) ways we know of to build a tunnel between planets would cause both planets to implode shortly thereafter.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:DWave by Rei · · Score: 1

      How can people here actually be this bad at detecting snark?

      --
      "Define 'interesting'". "Oh God, oh God, we're all gonna die?"
    10. Re: DWave by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      And women are suddenly going to be just as interested in men's things as men are, and men are going to knit and suckle babies just like women.

      Huh? Your "future" is nearly our current reality...

    11. Re:DWave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:DWave by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      "The future's bright, the future's homogenized.
      ( And fusion-powered. )"

      And 3-D printed!!

      The important question is... does of any of this mean that "I gotta wear shades...."

    13. Re:DWave by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      +1

      I'm still waiting for my flying car and jet pack as promised by Popular Science.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    14. Re:DWave by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Only if you’re getting good grades.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    15. Re:DWave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3D-printed, fusion-powered shades only, please. Otherwise, go to cell #3.

    16. Re:DWave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The important question is... does of any of this mean that "I gotta wear shades...."

      If there is a nuke in your future, sure.

    17. Re:DWave by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      He plans to hire the accountants from the Pentagon audit since they have experience in working the practical side of multidimensional mathematics.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:DWave by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      The important question is... does of any of this mean that "I gotta wear shades...."

      If there is a nuke in your future, sure.

      Does Fallout 76 count....

    19. Re:DWave by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

      Poe's Law: Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the parodied views.

  5. Quantum radar and laser rifles... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next week, from China's Organization of Outrageous Oddities: HoloDestroyers and Flux Reactors. Really though, I wonder if their stuff actually works as advertised.

  6. How about a sneak peak of this device then? by bob4u2c · · Score: 1, Troll

    Really, you quantum entangled two particles, sent one miles away and observe the other one to detect a plane. Doesn't observing of the other particle change the state of the entangled particle sent away? Plus there is the whole what if that particle hits anything else on the way, say a rain drop?

    Sounds like they have been watching too much Sci-Fi or they just wanted to call it Quantum Radar when its just really an narrow band radar.

    What's next, they are working on a Reverse Quantum Phase Radar Interference Detector to detect when their Quantum Radar is jammed? (hopefully it's snozberries jam).

    1. Re:How about a sneak peak of this device then? by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

      If someone jams their quantum radar, they just reverse the polarity.

      --
      -- sigs cause cancer.
  7. BS meter bending the needle on the peg by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 0, Troll

    This "Schrodinger's Cat Scan" radar doesn't seem credible to me. Granted, "quantum" contains a lot of weirdness, but this just doesn't convince me.

    Disinformation? Maybe.

    Cover for some other technology entirely? I think I'd be more likely to believe that.

    1. Re: BS meter bending the needle on the peg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is entangled with something. Nothing to think too much about

    2. Re:BS meter bending the needle on the peg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it doesn't exist

    3. Re:BS meter bending the needle on the peg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OTOH they probably aren't revealing the missing piece which is absolutely blockchain!

      If you record both generation and detection events via a blockchain algorithm which is constantly monitored for qubit updates, in an active quantum system, then you should be able to instantly monitor all events within the operator's personal reality, simultaneously. Due to uncertainty principle an extra element is required to fix certainty for the observer.
      This would be blockchain! Nothing is more certain today than blockchain integration, and that term alone just reeks of complex math.
      Energy and sufficient photons could be harnessed from a local source of high temperature plasma, say about 10 million degrees. It's doable with say 10 second pulses.

      Data collected would require quantum sorting as it no doubt be in the vicinity of n*LoC^n/t volumes.

      Funding should be snap as the same system could be used for high speed trading of shares and with a little work, Lotto number prediction.

      I'm certain this is a thing.

       

    4. Re:BS meter bending the needle on the peg by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And contrariwise, just because you DO understand something, doesn't mean that it does actually exist.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re: BS meter bending the needle on the peg by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      This "Schrodinger's Cat Scan" radar doesn't seem credible to me.

      What gave it away? (/sarc)

    6. Re: BS meter bending the needle on the peg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is entangled with something. Nothing to think too much about

      Ahhh. You've seen my fishing gear then.

    7. Re: BS meter bending the needle on the peg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but the principle only barely makes sense.

    8. Re: BS meter bending the needle on the peg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      High resolution heat sensors on satellites.

    9. Re:BS meter bending the needle on the peg by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      OTOH they probably aren't revealing the missing piece which is absolutely blockchain

      (Picture of Bad Hair Day Meme Dude)
      "I'm not saying it's blockchain ... but it's blockchain."

  8. Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Awesome, so this disproves bell's theorem and thus re-writes the laws of WM as we currently understand them.

    Or at least the simplified description of this does. perhaps the real process is different.

    Bell's entanglement experiment results in a rather cool result that even though one can have spooky actions at a distance, you cannot use it to transmit information. That is you can if you compare results at each end see that there was a measurement induced correlation in the photons but you can't determine this from the statistical distribution of measurements at either end by themselves.

    Thus you can't possibly see the aircraft in the local beam due to changes in the remote beam.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re: Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably someone got the explanation completely wrong, and the radar uses interference og the reflected photons similar to what is used in astronomy

  9. Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    That isn't how quantum entanglement works. China Electronics Technology Group Corporation is betting that readers are stupid or ignorant or both. That's a relatively safe bet, too.

    The radar might still work, since there are other ways to design good radar.

    1. Re:Lies by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It seems unlikely that you'd demonstrate your super stealth breaking radar at an air show.

    2. Re: Lies by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You think?

    3. Re:Lies by greylion3 · · Score: 1

      The Chinese have historically had a different culture with regards to sharing information.
      To them, it makes much more sense to share your inventions publicly, than to patent them.

      Although China has enacted patent and copyright laws similar to western countries within the last few decades, they are only sporadically being enforced, and violation of them is commonplace.

      --
      Privacy begins with ..
    4. Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, is it only making people disappear that's done in secret? Scientific info will be shared publicly, but making dissidents disappear will be kept secret.

    5. Re:Lies by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      No, the author of this ignorant puff-piece is hoping that the readers are stupid or ignorant or both.

  10. Re:And I have a quantum bullshit detector by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll need a quantum GFY shield for about another 6 years.

  11. FTL Communications? by shatteredsilicon · · Score: 2

    If I'm reading this correctly, the exact same technology also enables faster-than-light communication.

    1. Re:FTL Communications? by zlives · · Score: 1

      its all gone plaid

    2. Re:FTL Communications? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If I'm reading this correctly, the exact same technology also enables faster-than-light communication.

      Yep.

      And if you can fling things around fast enough, faster-than-light communication enables future-to-past information transfer.

      Bye, bye, grandma. (The grandfather paradox, female version, doesn't suffer from the "but it turns out grandpa was a cuckold" loophole.)

      Fortunately for those of us who depend on causality for countinued existence, Bell's theorem says the radar doesn't really work.

      (Though one that passes entangled photons past both sides of the plane, then measures their interference, might in principle detect the plane without exposing it to the photons. THAT one doesn't violate bell, lightspeed, or causality, but is pretty spooky.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    3. Re:FTL Communications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bell's theorem says the radar doesn't really work.

      Probably more related to the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-tester concept, which is completely compatible with Bell's theorem and allows testing of objects where only sometimes a photon interacts with it.

    4. Re:FTL Communications? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >Bell's theorem says the radar doesn't really work.
      How do you figure? Bells theorem rules out local hidden variables, which implies that faster-than-light quantum information transfer MUST be included in any quantum theory capable of describing observed phenomena. (barring superdeterminism)

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:FTL Communications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you can fling things around fast enough, faster-than-light communication enables future-to-past information transfer.

      Nope. Just because you cross the zero point of the number line, on your limited mathematical model, doesn't mean reality has to agree.

      If we find that something goes faster than light, then we are simply dead wrong about the speed of light (in a vacuum) being the universal speed limit. No, really, it is that simple. Leave the time travel drivel in Sci-Fi land and popular "science" magazines, where it belongs.

    6. Re:FTL Communications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many worlds is compatible with Bell's Theorem but does not contain superluminal information transfer.

    7. Re:FTL Communications? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware that Many Worlds addressed entanglement at all.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  12. uhm by superwiz · · Score: 0

    metoo

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  13. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's not was Bell's theorem shows... Not even close. Bell's theorem disproves local hidden variable theories.

    You're right that you can't use entanglement to transmit information faster that light, but Bell's theorem doesn't have anything to do with it.

  14. The really important question is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who did the chinese steal this technology from this time ?

    1. Re: The really important question is.... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Gene Roddenberry

  15. Another claim by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They had a similar story last year, and the year before. It's not true. If it was, the last thing they would do is tell everyone that they can see stealth plans (or at least how they did it so it could be duplicated/nullified.) But it's not true. It's designed to impress someone, I'm not sure who.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
    1. Re:Another claim by jezwel · · Score: 1

      More likely to force US agencies to spend more money attempting to defeat the advertised capability.

    2. Re: Another claim by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      It's designed to impress someone

      It's propaganda meant to intimidate but they certainly get points for entertainment.

    3. Re:Another claim by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

      Impress their government to not be fired, or worse?

    4. Re:Another claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump would fall for it.

    5. Re:Another claim by c · · Score: 1

      It's also possible they've come up with a more conventional technique which mostly works, and they're unloading a pile of bullshit to mislead their enemies on exactly how it's being done, hopefully sending them off on a wild research tangent, and hopefully distracting them from making conventional detection harder.

      It's the land of Sun Tzu; they've probably heard of misdirection.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    6. Re:Another claim by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If it were any good, the military would take over the lab & plant, hush everybody up, and make the company issue "corrections".

    7. Re:Another claim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's designed to impress someone, I'm not sure who.

      Me.

  16. Duffman by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Duffman/China, says a lot of things!

  17. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not was Bell's theorem shows... Not even close. Bell's theorem disproves local hidden variable theories.

    You're right that you can't use entanglement to transmit information faster that light, but Bell's theorem doesn't have anything to do with it.

    What do you think "local" means? it's the light cone.

  18. if anyone has figured this out its the Chineese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, this radar works by generating streams of pairs of entagled photons, sends one of each pair into space and holds the other for some finite period of time before measuring it. If the photon stream that was sent out into space interacts with an aircraft the measured state of the stream held back will produce a consistently non random result, or a consistently random result if the original pair were polarized. But I am not a physics expert.

    Why the Chineese? Well, in America we only promote stupid, since only stupid believes white is right.

  19. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    yes it is what Bell's theorem shows.

    Here's how. Bell's theorem requires acting on the entangled pair in a way that will change the pair relationship. If you simply force one of the particles to a specific state then it breaks the entanglement and the other particle becomes independent. (thus no FTL info). And if you act on the entangled pair, then when you measure the local particle's state you also break the entanglement (thus no FTL).

    here's a layman's description:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/c...

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  20. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    But regardless of arguing over what is or is not rolled up in Bell's theorem at least we both agree on the general principle that there's no FTL.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  21. Re:Zach Patterson / ZIP = "better programmer" - no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe you are a real person. It's just so sad. You must have nobody.

  22. Here it is by Tough+Love · · Score: 2
    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  23. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Actually you've got that exactly backwards.

    Bell's theorem:

    No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

    with superdeteminism being the notable exception.

    From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    If a measurement setting in one location instantaneously modifies the probability distribution that applies at a distant location, then local hidden variables are ruled out.

    Basically, Bell's Theorem states that quantum entanglement MUST transmit quantum information faster than light - without that, no theory can describe all observed quantum phenomena (unless the universe is absolutely deterministic with no possibility of free will - a proposition which is pointless to discuss further since the outcome of such a discussion is already predetermined)

    Harnessing that fact to transmit classical information faster than light is a completely separate question. But nobody is claiming that is happening here.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  24. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by goombah99 · · Score: 2

    First let's not argue what or what not is in Bell's theorem given that we violently agree that you can't transmit information faster than the speed of light.
    THe work surrounding bell's theorem seems to establish two things
      1. state changes can be transmitted faster than the speed of light (as we both agree)
      2. That the nature of the state changes cannot transmit information faster than the speed of light (I aver and I think you agree).

    So however you want to state it, information can't be transmitted the way that was described in the article.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  25. Most radars are beams by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    think of the canonical radar screen with the rotating antenna. it's a beam. Sure you can now do phased arrays but beams were the original incarnation

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  26. Schrodinger's radar by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    It detects the plane if you don't look at the radar screen

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Schrodinger's radar by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      The opposing army should just bring a bunch of really gigantic boxes into the field with them, then refuse to look in them.

      The losses of the Chinese Air Force will be astounding!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Schrodinger's radar by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      The plane is both there and not there until you observe it dropping a bomb or you (or not).

    3. Re:Schrodinger's radar by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Or if a plane is there it gasses the radar operator?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Schrodinger's radar by rlitman · · Score: 1

      But the plane may or may not be a cat.

  27. Bullshit by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    You can only compare the result of the beams if you have both beams. You can't get information about the other beam from the one you hold onto alone.

    1. Re:Bullshit by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      I would suppose they look at the beam that reflected back.... but of in that case you don't need the other entangled beam for anything, HAH.

      sounds like a load of B.S. to me.

  28. This set off my ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... quantum bullshit detector.

    They are mixing the science of quantum entanglement with fucking ballistic particles.

    And "2015?" Goddam stealth anything bigger than mesoscopic size is Classical.

    Why the simple hell didn't they mention blockchain?

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re: This set off my ... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Why the simple hell didn't they mention blockchain?

      Why would they reveal their secret ingredient??

  29. TRANSLATION by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    PLA: We have not been able to figure out how to make stealth aircraft. We know our currently illegal expansion into the South China Sea will result in conflict in the next few years, with aircraft we cannot see. And our enemies will be able to see everything we have. So we have to figure out a way to make them think we're on equal footing, at least in terms of seeing aircraft, so they will delay stopping our imperial march through Southeast Asia.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:TRANSLATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stealth aircrafts aren't invisible. Every first world countries, including China, are able to detect them. They are useful for fighting non first tier countries and after limiting command and control from first tier countries.

    2. Re: TRANSLATION by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      PLA: We have not been able to figure out how to make stealth aircraft.

      Pfft, they can't even figure out how to manufacture a modern jet engine.

    3. Re:TRANSLATION by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      So America's imperial march through southeast Asia was OK. Huh. How many died in Vietnam? In Laos? In Cambodia? Now how many has China killed? What, nobody? What kind of imperial march doesn't kill anyone?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    4. Re:TRANSLATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An economic one?

    5. Re:TRANSLATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is they? The US who everyone pretty much states is an empire with 800 bases around the world in over 70 different countries?

      A pot calling the kettle black...

    6. Re:TRANSLATION by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The PLA has some pretty good stealth aircraft actually.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  30. Zach Patterson / ZIP "Greatest Hits" (lol, not) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See how STUPID "ZIP" (Zach Patterson) the CHIMP is (tried to take credit for what I solved before him) https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he needs to LEARN TO READ)!

    I even SHOW ways to do it YOURSELF https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... (he couldn't).

    Delphi/FreePascal/ObjectPascal HAS no issue w/ null-term'd string bufferoverflows https://developers.slashdot.or... - C does, C++ can UNLESS you do what I said 1st loser.

    Tell us about CODE SIGNING (which has been STOLEN & ABUSED) https://www.helpnetsecurity.co... MY METHOD CAN'T BE (upmodded +2 INTERESTING in CODING FOR DEFCON no less) https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

    "I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    BIG TALK - Yet ZIP has nothing to show in programs. I can https://news.slashdot.org/comm... from registered /.ers liking/using/praising my work (& 100k users worldwide too). He can't.

    LIAR ZIP says he has no account "I don't have an account, so I don't have mod points" https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

    Yet LIAR ZIP says he downmods my posts (IMPOSSIBLE MINUS AN ACCOUNT on /.): "I down-modded a few of your post on other threads" - by Anonymous Coward "ZIP" on Thursday October 11, 2018 @11:31AM (#57461058) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    APK

    P.S.=> KEEP IMPERSONATING ME CHIMP https://science.slashdot.org/c... - this comes out every time EXPOSING your BLOWHARD incompetence... apk

  31. Bad description of quantum radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article gives a pretty poor, if not outright wrong, explanation of what quantum radar is supposed to be. The idea behind quantum radar is that the microwave signal sent out by the radar system is first generated by one half of an entangled photon beam, and this is done in a way that maintains the quantum state as the photon beam is converted into a microwave signal. When the microwave signal returns after bouncing off a target object, the system is then able to use a comparison to the other half of the entangled photon beam in order to filter out any background noise. This would prevent an enemy from being able to using signal jamming to interfere with your radar. It would also make it easier to detect a stealth aircraft because no stealth aircraft is 100% invisible to radar, and quantum radar would, in theory, be able to pick out very small radar returns, that would normally be lost in the background radiation.

  32. Zach Patterson / ZIP = "better programmer" - not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You said it ZIP: Where's your work everyone can see/use? It's not. It's HOTAIRWARE/NOTWARE (lol) "I'm a much better programmer than APK" - by Anonymous Coward ZIP on Monday October 08, 2018 @11:27PM (#57449082) FROM https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

    The BETTER PROGRAMMER w/ no programs, lol - @ least you can say your "code" has NO BUGS - of course, it also does ZERO (like you) since it does nothing @ all, lol!

    You hotair BLOWHARD talker, lol!

    You f'd up ZIP https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...

    Yet 100,000++ users of my ware & dozens of even REGISTERED /.ers like/use/praise MY work https://news.slashdot.org/comm... vs. your HOTAIR talk punk!

    * LMAO!

    (Let's see how YOU take it when I publicly SHIT ALL OVER YOU by letting FACTS of YOUR FUCKUPS vs. ME https://science.slashdot.org/c... do the job for me)

    APK

    P.S.=> You STUPID & LAZY all talk chimpanzee - KEEP IMPERSONATING me https://science.slashdot.org/c... - I'll expose your BLOWHARD INCOMPETENCE publicly, lol... apk

  33. Blockchain radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    impossible to spoof with stealth. guaranteed or double your bits back

  34. No need to RTFA by fred911 · · Score: 1

    The usage of the words "Chinese" and "developed" in the same sentence is sufficiently descriptive of the utility of the linked resource. Useless!

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re: No need to RTFA by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      How about a headline that reads "Chinese biotech firm develops edible pets?"

  35. Here's a thought by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If China is claiming the technology to " see " stealth aircraft is now a reality, why are they still spending big $$$$ on building stealth aircraft ?

    China is fixated on image. They took that whole " fake it till you make it " saying to heart and desperately wants the entire planet to believe they are the most amazing, powerful and capable country in history.

    It should be noted the term " Paper Tiger " originated in China. They should be all too familiar with what it means since they are basically the very definition of the word.

    1. Re:Here's a thought by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Because as nobody else has stealth aircraft, the Americans can't detect them either. Do try to think before you post.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  36. like this...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine sending 2 beams out, both vertically polarized. If one of them hits an airplane the hypothesis is that this would change the polarization of that photon. Measure the entangled photon (which you might bounce around somehow to give the remote one a chance to interact, presuming this delaying won't alter the entanglement) and if it shows the photon is not vertically polarized you claim it has detected a target.
    Lots of practical difficulties, including that the air might change polarizations etc., or bugs or birds, but in principle it sounds like it could possibly work. It would be far easier to demo on lab scale, so avoiding problems of what a few miles of moving air might do and problems of how to delay the "local" beam so you can measure it. (No sense measuring it as it is emitted, before the remote beam has gone far enough to interact with anything.) Still, anything that can change polarization (or is there some other property that might be measurable for this purpose? Some variant of the 2 slot experiment?) might stand a chance of being detected.

    I would not dismiss this claim as a hoax out of hand.

    1. Re:like this...? by BytePusher · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that’s not how quantum mechanics work. Just google why you can’t send information FTL and I hope it’ll make sense. They would have to measure reflected photons, hitting an object could change the distribution of their quantum state, which would show up as decoherence against the background.

  37. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    (unless the universe is absolutely deterministic with no possibility of free will - a proposition which is pointless to discuss further since the outcome of such a discussion is already predetermined)

    In this case whether or not the discussion occurs is also pre-determined along with the outcome.

    Also I'm not sure what you expect from free will. Brains (yours or mine) are systems that take input (including the brain state/structure at time t), process it, and produce output. That output, whatever it is, is literally your (aka your brain's) will. The process could be either deterministic (output is determined by the input) or it could include some true randomness (noise/indeterminism). I'm don't know which is correct, but I don't see how your decisions containing noise is somehow a marvelous or obvious thing.

  38. Does it run on fairy dust and unicorn farts? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    LOL China.

    1. Re: Does it run on fairy dust and unicorn farts? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Powdered rhino horn and polar bear gall bladder.

    2. Re: Does it run on fairy dust and unicorn farts? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Oh! You're right, of course, I totally forgot: Asia.

  39. Bad physics = bullshit by gavron · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are three parts to their claim and they're all pseudo-babble junk:
    1. A "stream of photons" can detect a stealth aircraft from some useful distance
    2. Photons can be entangled on the fly (in real "stream" speed)
    3. The entangled stream at home can be analyzed on the fly (same speed)

    1.
    Can photons be entangled? Sure. Can they be entangled at the speed of light such that a "stream of photons" (going out sequentially at the speed of light) are all entangled... possibly, but not with current technology and not with 2015 technology.

    Think of it this way... physicists spend days setting up a quantum entanglement experiment where they entangle ONE or even TWO and sometimes FOUR (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa736d) photons. To entangle enough to create a "stream of photons" and then sweep the skies two or three dimensionally for stealth aircraft is orders of magnitude beyond current tech.

    2. It takes experiments ages (in photon time) to get photons entangled. Our primitive tools (electronics) uses electrons in a wire, which are slower than photons in air or in vacuum. Our tools simply cannot hammer these fast-moving nails fast enough... so what we do is fire a crap-ton of nails at our slow moving hammer and hope we can hit one into the other into the detector.

    3. See #2. We don't have the speed with our slow-moving tools to analyze a photon stream.

    I'm calling physics bullshit.

    Ehud

    1. Re:Bad physics = bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think of it this way... physicists spend days setting up a quantum entanglement experiment where they entangle ONE or even TWO and sometimes FOUR (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/aa736d) photons.

      Yes, until the day one of them was setting things up with a Web-UI and a popup appeared saying "This one weird trick will entangle your photons in real time. NASA furious!"

    2. Re: Bad physics = bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, you can send a laser through a BBO crystal to generate pairs of entangled half frequency photons. No wierd electronics reqiured. You can generate two streams of pairwise entangled photons this way. Such entanglement is not all-to-all, but I dont think thats what is described. The rest of the description of the device defies physics as er know it ðYoe

    3. Re:Bad physics = bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding point 2: Instead of using superconducting qubits, as you suggest, you can use spontaneous parametric down conversion with a Josephson junction. This doesn't entirely solve the problem, but, yes photons can be entangled on the fly. This was done for light in the 80s.

      It's easier to do quantum lidar than quantum radar due to thermal noise issues. I don't know what the Chinese have.

  40. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    I was going to jump in with something about violating causality, then I thought, better wait for somebody who actually knows what they're talking about.

    Maybe they will follow up with an improved perpetual motion machine or a breakthrough in cold fusion.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  41. Adding a sci-fi word? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    "Quantum Radar"? China, you can't just add sci-fi word to another word and hope it means something!

    ... Huh, looks like something's wrong with the Microverse Battery

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:Adding a sci-fi word? by dasmoscas · · Score: 0

      Entangled Blockchain RADAR!

  42. Sees Chinese Stealth Aircraft, vendor pulled $5 pa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No doubt because a vendor for the aircraft decided to save $5/plane and took out an unimportant part.

  43. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Immerman · · Score: 1

    What I expect from free will is simple, if difficult to observe conclusively: that I could act in a manner other than I do. That my changing thoughts, aspirations, and ideals can influence my future actions. Or alternately, at the most simple, that my actions could not be perfectly predicted beforehand. Superdeterminism denies that - as every action I will ever make was known with absolute certainty from the first moment of the universe's existence. As such it completely denies the value of consciousness, as it can have no effect on your actions, or upon anything else - we're all simply complex automata and consciousness is an utterly superfluous side effect with no relevance to our existence.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  44. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Immerman · · Score: 2

    Actually I remain unconvinced of the impossibility of transmitting information faster than light - all the proofs I've seen all rely on assumptions which seem overly conservative to me. Not that I'm expert enough to fully understand the proofs, but I'll trust the experts when they say "these are the assumptions this proof depends on"

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  45. Total Nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quantum entanglement doesnâ(TM)t allow for the instantaneous transfer of information. No information can be gleaned from the stored photon, you simple know the spin of the other photon but that is not effected by it interaction with the plane also tells you nothing.

  46. Re: Zach Patterson / ZIP = "better programmer" - n by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    He lives with his mother, so he has her at least. I suspect it's a Norman Bates type relationship.

  47. Observe the other streeam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good luck with observing the other stream accurately. They must have totally defeated Quantum theory and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Very clever?

  48. It's not to impress by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's to get the US to spend more money on defense instead of back home on the (floundering) economy.

    It's a classic cold war technique. The goal is to make your opponent drive themselves into bankruptcy trying to match you. We used it on the Russians and it pretty much wrecked them.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's not to impress by gtall · · Score: 1

      I hardly think the U.S. military is likely to fall for this. However, given the scientific grasp of the Administration, maybe you are right.

  49. True Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    China both has and does not have a quantum radar.
    They won't know until they open the box.

    1. Re:True Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China both has and does not have a quantum radar.
      They won't know until they open the box.

      I'm looking forward to seeing that unboxing on youtube...

  50. True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    They shot down a stealth plane with ancient modified soviet surface to air missile system.

  51. And yet... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    They've developed quantum radar that can see invisible airplanes and yet they still can't drive...

    *Note : Extreme use of sarcasm*

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:And yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the Chinese need help seeing things.

      Hmmm. Wonder why?

  52. That's nothing, China. by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Funny

    We've got quantum BLOCKCHAIN radar. It not only detects stealthy aircraft, it can detect aircraft you don't even have but wish you did.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:That's nothing, China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can it detect reinstated press-passes, too?

      I certainly hope so!!

    2. Re:That's nothing, China. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but I've heard the Russians have Quantum Blockchain Graphene radar. Top that, suckers!

    3. Re:That's nothing, China. by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I've heard the Russians have Quantum Blockchain Graphene radar. Top that, suckers!

      Well, we have Quantum Blockchain Graphene Gravity Wave radar and there's an app that will stream it to Facebook.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  53. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Harnessing that fact to transmit classical information faster than light is a completely separate question. But nobody is claiming that is happening here.

    That is exactly what the summary is claiming is happening:

    As a result, by looking at the stream which remains back home it's possible to work out what has happened to the other beam.

    That is precisely what you cannot do: examining the photons you have doesn't tell you any information about what has happened to the photons you sent out, the only "information" it gives you is (basically) the what the state the photons you sent out will be if they haven't interacted with anything (you don't, however, know if they have interacted with something or not). Since the point of radar is to interact with whatever you're looking for, that makes it rather pointless.

    Note that a "quantum radar" could maybe improve on classical radars by comparing reflected photons to give you more information about what exactly reflected them, but it's still only useful if you get some of the photons you send out back. Even then I doubt you could actually make such a system (I'm not entirely sure it's physically or even theoretically possible). I am sure, however, the Chinese don't have such a system: they would never publicly disclose it if they did. The only reason to brag about it's existence is to either convince other countries to waste time trying to replicate it, or to convince them their stealth fighters will be useless against the Chinese. Either way, it's a purely psychological move.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  54. Quantum Radar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's next? Quantum bullets?

  55. I HATE /. BULLIES like ZIP & c6gunner... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I'm so sick & tired of /. BULLIES. You shitweasels have nothing better to do than HARASS, STALK & IMPERSONATE little ol' me. I've done absolutely NOTHING wrong & just try to make everyone's lives better w/ my work that stops ads & malware.

    * As soon as I post, I'm CENSORED to -1 w/ ABUSED downmodpoints by bullies like ZIP, who even admit to this. I caught c6gunner mocking then IMPERSONATING me when he forgot to log out. Zontar mailed me a postcard w/ THREATS on it, then LIES & STALKS me. All because you JEALOUS JOWIE "ne'er-do-wells" KNOW I'm World-Class & you're shit. It's why you hide behind FAKE names & UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS.

    I'm even improving my already GREAT PHYSIQUE by getting calf implants while you weezils sit around all day on /. STALKING & HARASSING your BETTERS. I repeatedly dust the no-mind bullshit blatherings you BULLIES post to attack me. Like always I WIN & YOU LOSE.

    APK

    P.S.=> This BULLYING of me is SO UNFAIR & is probably a HATE CRIME because I'm gay. GROW UP... apk

  56. How 'bout them aliens? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

    Can it spot the alien DC-8s that have been circling earth for millions of years? Many without stewardesses or working restroom facilities. Really terrible service, that. It's enough to upset any tenhat alien. And make 'em hungry. Which explains why they've taken to sucking out the brains of our smartest politicians.

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  57. BAH! I gotta quantum camera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that can see through a woman's dress!

    I gotta pair of brand new roller skates
    You gotta brand new key...

  58. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    that I could act in a manner other than I do.

    At a given time your (brain's) state is what it is. The inputs have been given. Are you saying that if you "ran the tape" twice, with everything precisely identical up to that time, you would expect to act in a manner other than you did? That, with every thought, feeling, experience etc - literally every single thing up to that time - precisely duplicated, you would make a different decision? Because to me that sounds indistinguishable from randomness.

    That my changing thoughts, aspirations, and ideals can influence my future actions.

    They can in either picture. Your brain is you. The state of your brain evolves over time. No non-determinism is required for this.

    Or alternately, at the most simple, that my actions could not be perfectly predicted beforehand.

    In principle or in practice? Life would be dull if we could predict everything in practice, but that's so far beyond the possible I don't see it as a real issue.

    Superdeterminism denies that - as every action I will ever make was known with absolute certainty from the first moment of the universe's existence. As such it completely denies the value of consciousness, as it can have no effect on your actions, or upon anything else - we're all simply complex automata and consciousness is an utterly superfluous side effect with no relevance to our existence.

    I don't find it problematic that my every action is determined from the start. I am my brain. As such I am making those decisions, albeit deterministically. That I'm aware of it is nice, but I don't see it as necessary.

  59. Beams by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it must be tough to make a beam that can be rapidly moved back and forth through space.

    The second beam isn't aimed at anything, but can be measured, to determine what happens to the first beam. That's what quantum entanglement is, in a very crude sense.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  60. I invented a warp drive, anti-gravity and can walk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    on water in my big bird slippers.

  61. Butt hurt americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always come to this kind of threads to read all the comments of butt hurt Americans making fun of China. It seems most Americans can't even consider that maybe, just maybe, another country is doing things better than them.

    China is overtaking us all by the simple fact of having the biggest population on Earth. They are going to be next world's most powerful country, and there is nothing we can do about it. So relax and enjoy your life, you don't need to be number one at everything to be happy.

  62. You need both beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Wikipedia,

    The basic concept is to create a stream of entangled visible-frequency photons and split it in half. One half, the "signal beam", goes through a conversion to microwave frequencies in a way that preserves the original quantum state. The microwave signal is then sent and received as in a normal radar system. When the reflected signal is received it is converted back into photons and compared with the other half of the original entangled beam, the "idler beam".

    So who is to blame for the bullshit explanation, China or TFA?

  63. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The article's description is flat our wrong. The idea behind quantum radar is that the photons used to generate the microwave signal are first entangled with photons that are kept inside the system, and then when the system receives returning microwaves, it's able to compare them to the entangled photons and filter out background noise and enemy jamming signals. The filtering out of background noise is what in theory would allow quantum radar a greater chance to detect stealth aircraft, which normally rely on background noise to obscure their small radar cross section. That being said, just because the Chinese say they've invented it, obviously doesn't mean they have. In fact, I would guess if any major power does develop a working quantum radar, they'd keep it secret.

  64. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by gtall · · Score: 1

    More likely, given the scientific capabilities of the U.S., Russia, and several others, the company is merely groveling befor their alleged government. Think Roger Rabbit, "Pllbbbbblleeeese give us some money to cover our mismanagement...see, we have Quantum Radar!!"

  65. I guess its this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://hackaday.com/2015/11/30/uses-for-quantum-entanglement-with-shanni-prutchi/

    Still need to hit the plane with the signal.

  66. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    In particular, the quantum radar does not claim any FTL nonsense. A beam is sent out, and reflected from the target. A very weak reflection, in case of a stealth plane. The quantum radar is not faster, it is merely able to see that extremely weak reflection because it is not hampered by background noise (natural microwave noise or electronic warfare jammers).

    Read the wikipedia article on quantum radar. The principle is so old it has a wikipedia page - the only "new" here is that China claims they have a working device. I would guess some others have these devices too, but are quiet about them.

  67. Dear Richard Feynman, please advise by epine · · Score: 1

    Basically, Bell's Theorem states that quantum entanglement MUST transmit quantum information faster than light

    I've never entirely agreed with that formulation. Any machine you can build that verifies this theory does so using only information that travels at the speed of light.

    So your other explanation is that all the information flows in this experiment, from the entangled particle, through the physical apparatus remain entangled until the final green light goes on (Bell's theorem verified).

    All it takes is a much larger view of entanglement.

    I am not a physicist, but my semi-informed view is that you can't prove entanglement without your conclusion itself having becoming entangled with the entangled particles during its inception. Every information flow in the conclusion takes place at the speed of light.

    It's only when you abstract the experiment from the experimenter that it becomes attractive to insert "and then a miracle happened" (because you didn't feel the urge to trace the entanglement back through macroscopic systems all the way to the green light bulb).

    Even if I'm wrong, I'm 50% correct. Because any explanation of entanglement that posits the instantaneous modification of probability distributions at a distance needs to explain that our experimental verification of this doesn't contain a hidden back channel though regular, speed-limit obeying information flows.

    In my view, all particles are entangled until proven otherwise. So any starting point where the pairs of entangled particles under test is the only source of entanglement you might potentially need to explain (in your apparatus) is a bizarre conceptual conceit.

    I would also venture that in a universe where entanglement of all particles is the norm and not the exception (prove otherwise ...) that by the theory of entropic entanglement, all entanglements about which you lack special insight are indistinguishable from random background noise (hence the unknown entanglements can almost be universally neglected—except perhaps when you build a contraption with a green light that goes on to signal Bell's theorem confirmed, under the [sort of] faster-than-light school of interpretation).

    Dear Richard Feynman,

    I wish to build a black-box experimental apparatus to confirm Bell's inequality, one that is fully automatic, and the entire experiment ending with only the signal of a green or red light.

    To ensure that I don't fool myself (this having a colossally low bar), I wish to confirm before beginning the test run that no two particles in the apparatus itself are themselves entangled, so that the only entanglement present in the system is the entanglement under test.

    Please advise.

    TIA,
    a concerned fool

    1. Re:Dear Richard Feynman, please advise by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Even if I'm wrong, I'm 50% correct

      Fucking millennials.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  68. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Perpetual motion is possible if you can figure out a way of feeding all the energy in the universe into your device. The motion stops when the universe ends... so perpetual...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  69. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Awesome, so this disproves bell's theorem and thus re-writes the laws of WM as we currently understand them.

    I do not have the knowledge to know what is theoretically, never mind technically, possible. However, it is not just China that is working on this:

    * https://uwaterloo.ca/institute-for-quantum-computing/news/quantum-radar-will-expose-stealth-aircraft
    * https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43877682

    General informations:

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_radar

  70. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, we already have them. Currents in superconductors and superfluids can stay in perpetual motion, since there is no energy dissipation related to their movement. You just can't start extracting any energy from that motion and expect it to keep moving afterwards.

  71. Yeah, that's cool, but... by johnwfran · · Score: 1

    did you hear about China's doomsday machine?

    1. Re:Yeah, that's cool, but... by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      No problem.
      We've closed the mineshaft gap

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
  72. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by michelcolman · · Score: 1

    This should be modded way up, even it it's an anonymous coward. The summary is indeed completely wrong, the radar actually works by comparing reflected signals to the signal that stayed home, thereby canceling background and jamming noise.

  73. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    btw, we already do have a good way to do cold fusion, it's called 'Muon-catalyzed fusion.' You can google it, there's a wiki article by the same name. My layman's understanding of it is that basically, be replacing an electron in a hydrogen atom with a Muon (think of it like the heavier cousin of an electron) the hydrogen atoms are drawn MUCH (~200) times closer to each other and way more likely to fuse. Current fusion technology relies on high pressures & temperatures to get the atoms close enough to each other that their random movements will cause them to bump into each other and fuse, but by using muons the atoms are naturally so much closer together that they can fuse at room temperatures (and much colder.) The big reason why we don't use this as an energy source now is NOT that we need a breakthrough in the understanding of fusion, but a breakthrough in economical ways to produce (and store) muons, which have an average lifetimes of 2.2 microseconds (2.2 millionths of a second.)

  74. Fusion-powered flying cars! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    > we will have AI and self-driving cars.
    Fusion-powered flying cars, please.

  75. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by jbengt · · Score: 1

    That is not what "free will" was about. You have free will if you can do what you want and others can't force you to do something else, even if the others are gods. Well, technically gods could make you do it, but they don't, because religious reasons to convince you that the gods are omnipotent, anyway.

  76. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

    You can't use entanglement to transmit data FASTER THAN LIGHT. Slower than light is possible. This quantum radar may be vaporware, but it is at least theoretically possible.

  77. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 1

    > That is exactly what the summary is claiming is happening:
    No. The article says that information is recovered. It does not say it happens faster than light. In Earth distances, light is pretty fast, so you can IN THEORY have "real-time" radar that involves quantum entanglement. This might be vaporware, but at least the summary isn't making impossible claims.

  78. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Immerman · · Score: 1

    >In this case whether or not the discussion occurs is also pre-determined along with the outcome.

    Quite - so, *if* I have a choice, I choose not to have the conversation, since my choice disproves the premise. And if I don't have a choice, it doesn't matter.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  79. Re: Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My device is the universe!

  80. sounds like BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you know when to detect on the other beam?
    detecting a photon absorbs it and destroys the entanglement, so you have to pick a time to do the measurement.
    I guess you could build a 10km long tunnel and put a detector at the end.

  81. Quantum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, my Quantum BS meter just want off.

  82. SDI bluff, not deployed Stealth deployed first by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > Stealth airplanes: Announced and bragged about before deployment.

    You've got that backwards. The Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk (stealth fighter) was deployed in 1983. It was Reve publicly in 1988, five years later.

    > "Starwars" missile protection: Announced and bragged about before deployment.

    Not quite. SDI was mostly bluffing and there was never a design, much less a deployment. It was a concept. At the time the program was shut down, it was estimated it would take another ten years to determine if such a thing were even possible. The US led the Soviet Union to believe we had some kind of proof-of-concept, but there was no such POC, just some ideas of different approaches being tested out.

    Those two examples would suggest this rule:
    Don't tell them about what you have.
    Tell them all about what you'll never actually have.

  83. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    That would be "heterodyne" lidar or some form of Optical coherence tomography (same priniciple). But not quantum

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  84. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Baloroth · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't say "faster than light", but it does claim (and I quote)

    Only one of these beams is sent out, but due to a quirk of quantum physics both streams will display the same changes, despite being potentially miles apart. As a result, by looking at the stream which remains back home it’s possible to work out what has happened to the other beam.

    which is exactly not how entanglement works (also, if it was, it would be FTL).

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  85. China claims all sorts of things by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Remember China claiming that their jet fighters were attacked by a turbo-prop cargo plane?

  86. What we need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a quantum radar to detect Chinese air and water pollution that presently goes unreported. Oh, and stinky Chinese farts too. Alas, brain farts will go perpetually undetected.

  87. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

    A breakthrough in basic physics would also be helpful because the energy cost of producing a muon is 6 GeV while each D-T fusion yields .0176 GeV of heat and is captured by a helium nucleus on average once per 1-200 reactions. Generating electricity costs another factor of 2.5, so the energy gap is nearly an order of magnitude.

    Store muons? I think that's a fanciful embellishment of your own, and thank you for explaining the length of a microsecond.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  88. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Information is a relatively abstract thing.
    Of course it can be transported faster than light. Qunatum entanglement breaks instantly ... if one photon gets forced to break its entanglement with the other one, you can see that at the other one. The trick is to have a way to keep an eye on a single photon ... which is not that easy.

    Another simple example is: you have a galactic mirror a few 100 million light years away, a pulsar or your torch light is moving a beam from left to right over it and you watch the reflection. That reflection can move with nearly any arbitrary speed ...

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  89. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    (you don't, however, know if they have interacted with something or not).
    Of course you know.
    Technically a photon hitting a metal surface is not reflected.
    It is absorbed and recreated. Hence the entanglement with his "brother" breaks.

    Other "ideas" about photons interacting with electrons, aka metallic surfaces, include that the photon changes its phase perpendicular to the surface. Aka it changes its polarization. Hence: it breaks entanglement with his "brother" or the "brother" changes polarization as well.

    No idea about what you want to nitpick ... both beams still only travel with the speed of light. And that is the only thing important. If you want: you can assume the detection is delayed by a time interval according to the distance the first photon has traveled ... then you get rid of your "instant is impossible assumption".

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  90. Re:Bonus: it disproved Bell's theorem! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    Ahh but mine can do work. The more work you ask it to do, the faster the universe ends :)

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.