Talk:Quantum radar

Rubbish

This is rubbish. 81.155.213.195 (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

the article or quantum radar? The article will grow as more is understood. Here's an un-sourced statement for you in the mean time: Instead of functioning like conventional reflective RADAR, which shows a reflection where the item to be tracked is; quantum radar lights up an entire area and looks for spaces, or gaps, where things to be tracked are not reflecting anything back. It's a bit like a photographic negative instead of the photograph itself. 108.16.227.19 (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure of the connection between Quantum Radar and this looking for a lack of reflection processing idea. This technique works for any radar type?

I also question the clutter removal aspects. Given the concept described a reflection from Clutter will contain generate entangled photons in the corrolater just from a different target. I guess this depends on definitions of clutter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.61.92.11 (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quantum radar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v101/i25/e253601
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150704090325/http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=Article-quantum-radar-could-render-stealth-aircraft-obsolete to http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=Article-quantum-radar-could-render-stealth-aircraft-obsolete
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://publications.european-patent-office.org/PublicationServer/documentpdf.jsp?PN=EP1750145%20EP%201750145&iDocId=6181555&iepatch=.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Quantum radar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150704090325/http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=Article-quantum-radar-could-render-stealth-aircraft-obsolete to http://www.afcea.org/content/?q%3DArticle-quantum-radar-could-render-stealth-aircraft-obsolete

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Russia Times as source?

The article on the Chinese development of this potential technology is from a propagandised source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkepticallyYours73 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes on modifying quantum radar page

While scientific research on quantum radar is very exciting at the moment, the general topic of quantum radar is rather controversial as well, especially with regard to how it is presented to the general public. So it is sensible to have a few suggested guidelines for the quantum radar page.

1) If you are an active researcher working on the topic of quantum radar in the public domain and wish to edit the quantum radar page's contents, it is best to avoid using an anonymous account or anonymous IP address. This helps with transparency and the integrity of the page.

2) Furthermore, if you satisfy 1) and are being paid by funded grants to work on the topic of quantum radar and wish to edit the quantum radar page's contents, it is required to disclose such payments according to WP:paid editor, again in the spirit of transparency. Please follow the instructions at WP:paid editor for how to disclose. Mwilde (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Mwilde, while it's good to see you working towards reinventing the norms which apply on Wikipedia, how about sticking to those which already exist?

Among the five pillars of Wikipedia, verifiability and a neutral point of view are key. Everything you add to an article should be backed by reliable, verifiable, independent sources. It shouldn't matter, and it shouldn't be possible to guess, who added the material if those conditions are met. Citing your own papers and books, WP:REFSPAM & WP:SELFCITE, verges on original research, conflict of interest & self promotion. Non-financial COI such as promoting your papers to stimulate their citation in other authors' papers is just as conflicted as the financial stuff. Providing retail links and discount codes for your own books on your userpage is also a WP:COI and advertising. Cabayi (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, apologies for this. On the quantum radar page, I have not added any of my own references. Thank you for removing the retail links from my userpage. Mwilde (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

On "speculative technology": User:Mwilde conducted an informal, anonymous twitter poll regarding how quantum radar should be represented. The choices were "emerging technology," "debated technology," "speculative technology," or "emerging and debated technology". There were 69 responses to the poll, and 68.1% of the responders selected "speculative technology" (8.7% went to "emerging", 8.7% to "debated," and 14.7% went to "emerging and debated") Most people who actively follow the twitter account [1] are active researchers in the general area of quantum information science. As such, this poll informally reflects the opinion of some quantum information researchers that quantum radar should be presented as a "speculative technology." To revert the wording on this opinion, strong evidence should be given by other means that alternate terminology is more appropriate. The word speculative literally means "theoretical rather than demonstrable" as indicated here, and so the term speculative indeed seems fitting to describe quantum radar, since it has not been convincingly demonstrated by experiment to operate at large distances as does classical radar. Mwilde (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Twitter is WP:UGC and is not considered reliable on Wikipedia. Was the poll advertised anywhere than on your twitter feed? Do its results indicate anything more than the fact that those who generally agree with you and follow you on Twitter agree with you on this point too? wikt:cognitive bias, filter bubble? Cabayi (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi, thanks for pointing this out. You have raised good points. We can certainly remove the reasoning about the twitter poll. The decision about "speculative technology" can be left to the usual methods of WP. Mwilde (talk) 10:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Clutter Elimination

If Quantum Radar works as described here, I can see how it would filter out jamming and in-band interference, but the article states that it would also eliminate ground clutter. As ground clutter is reflections from the ground surface, I can't see how a quantum radar would make any difference. The reflected quanta would still pass through the quantum filter.

Very happy to be told where I am wrong, but if I am right then references to eliminating ground clutter should be removed.

Richard (Jell) Ellis (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

New developments?

Should the pge be updated to include recent developments like https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022APS..MART39011A/abstract ?