Okay, now you’re literally just chewing words to become meaningless.
On this basis, every fucking piece of technology is quantum technology because guess what, the ENTIRE UNIVERSE WE FUCKING LIVE IN is adherent to quantum physics and mechanics, and anything, any technology, any kind of energy transference, can be broken down to some kind of quantum phenomena which would be either directly or indirectly used. A simple steam engine can be quantum. Your bedroom lights - regardless if you use LED, incandescent, neon, or a fucking candle.
The very definition of a quantum sensor is that it utilises a quantum effect DIRECTLY, instead of relying on a transitive property that we measure in a different way. A CCD sensor might rely on “a quanta of light” therefore making it “quantum technology”, but it won’t be a quantum sensor.
All the Newtonian mechanics can be described as a much more precise quantum function.
But this is precisely the difference I’ve been talking about regarding what can be considered a quantum sensor.
Observing a Newtonian system maketh not a quantum sensor - even though, again, all the observations are the result of quantum functions and quantum phenomena. To utilise the previous light example, this is akin to facing away from a light and using the shadows it casts to estimate the properties of the light. Whereas a true quantum sensor would be akin to measuring the light’s properties directly, instead of the transitional properties of the aforementioned shadows.
Furthermore, in no scientific debate will you ever qualify by a flurry of ad hominems followed by telling your opponent to “piss off”. That is the strategy of a sore loser who cares not about facts but about being right (even when being wrong) above all else. And that, my friend, goes against science in general.
Okay, now you’re literally just chewing words to become meaningless.
On this basis, every fucking piece of technology is quantum technology because guess what, the ENTIRE UNIVERSE WE FUCKING LIVE IN is adherent to quantum physics and mechanics, and anything, any technology, any kind of energy transference, can be broken down to some kind of quantum phenomena which would be either directly or indirectly used. A simple steam engine can be quantum. Your bedroom lights - regardless if you use LED, incandescent, neon, or a fucking candle.
The very definition of a quantum sensor is that it utilises a quantum effect DIRECTLY, instead of relying on a transitive property that we measure in a different way. A CCD sensor might rely on “a quanta of light” therefore making it “quantum technology”, but it won’t be a quantum sensor.
You are annoying and uninformed, by far the most of the universe as we perceive it as human beings is Newtonian.
Now piss off with your ignorant crap.
The only ignorant one here is you, buddy.
All the Newtonian mechanics can be described as a much more precise quantum function.
But this is precisely the difference I’ve been talking about regarding what can be considered a quantum sensor.
Observing a Newtonian system maketh not a quantum sensor - even though, again, all the observations are the result of quantum functions and quantum phenomena. To utilise the previous light example, this is akin to facing away from a light and using the shadows it casts to estimate the properties of the light. Whereas a true quantum sensor would be akin to measuring the light’s properties directly, instead of the transitional properties of the aforementioned shadows.
Furthermore, in no scientific debate will you ever qualify by a flurry of ad hominems followed by telling your opponent to “piss off”. That is the strategy of a sore loser who cares not about facts but about being right (even when being wrong) above all else. And that, my friend, goes against science in general.