Hmmm, a better inertial guidance system sounds awesome. But... why is this not a state secret?
Royal Navy says quantum navigation test a success
271–279 of 279 posts
Re: Royal Navy says quantum navigation test a success
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, there’s nothing yet. I think you‘re thinking about (e)LISA btw.
Here is a link for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Ant...
LISA: Laser Interferometer Space Antenna:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Ant... :
> LISA would be the first dedicated space-based gravitational-wave observatory. It aims to measure gravitational waves directly by using laser interferometry. The LISA concept has a constellation of three spacecraft arranged in an equilateral triangle with sides 2.5 million kilometres long, flying along an Earth-like heliocentric orbit. The distance between the satellites is precisely monitored to detect a passing gravitational wave.[2]
It also says the ESA LISA projected launch date is in year 2037.
Could 3 or 4 cubesats per cluster solve for space-based gravitational wave observation?
CubeSat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat
Li-Fi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Fi
Could the gravitational wave sensors be mounted on Starlink or OneWeb ULEO Ultra Low Earth Orbit satellites with a 5 year lifecycle? (Also, how sealed and shielded do consumer radio telescopes like Unistellar's eVscope and eQuinox need to be to last a few years in microgravity? Maybe mando blackout noise.)
What is SOTA State of the Art in is it "matter-wave interferometry"?
/? matter-wave interferometry wikipedia: https://www.google.com/search?q=matter-wave+interferometry+w...
/? matter-wave interferometry: https://www.google.com/search?q=matter-wave+interferometry
Can low-cost lasers and Rdyberg atoms e.g. Rydberg Technology solve for [space-based] matter-wave interferometry?
/? from:me LIGO https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3A%40westurner%20ligo :
- "Massive Black Holes Shown to Act Like Quantum Particles" (2022) https://www.quantamagazine.org/massive-black-holes-shown-to-... :
> Physicists are using quantum math to understand what happens when black holes collide. In a surprise, they’ve shown that a single particle can describe a collision’s entire gravitational wave.
- GitHub topic: gravitational-waves: https://github.com/topics/gravitational-waves
Re: Royal Navy says quantum navigation test a success
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sources of Noise ?! Doesn't that mean that the gravitational field is an information storage and transmission medium; a signal channel? Is it lossy? Is there a routable signal path to block harassing calls? Is it slower or cheaper than nonlocal entanglement; like quantum radar? What is the minimum energy necessary to cause a propagating thresholdable-as-binary pertubation of a gravitational field?
It sure is a medium! One Denver (IIRC) gravitational experiment could measure the field distortion caused by 100,000 people and cars at a local sports arena. [citation needed]
Is there a butterfly effect -like minimum pertubation for gravitational wave propagation through matter or massful things, at least?
Is there something that's low-enough power to not EM-burn a brainstem in a crytographically-keyed medical device with key revocation?
Does a fishing lure bobber on the water produce gravitational waves as part of the n-body gravitational wave fluid field, and how separable are the source wave components with e.g. Quantum Fourier Transform/or and other methods?
Butterfly effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
Chaos theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Quantum chaos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chaos
Superfluid Quantum Gravity:
Backscatter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter
Re: Royal Navy says quantum navigation test a success
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course we would always filter out noise completely if it was that easy to model. My point was that some components of that noise (for example the moving parts of the engines) can be modeled very accurately.
I think we’re saying the same thing?
Yes, indeed
Re: Royal Navy says quantum navigation test a success
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gravity is not magnetism, it does not care if it's iron or anything else.
Um how do you figure? Gravity cares about distance and mass, and as large parts of the planet move their density distribution shifts affecting both of those factors
Lol this point is true but it’s downvoted.
I love how the IQ of this place keeps spiraling downward.
Re: Royal Navy says quantum navigation test a success
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
From layman to former submariner, a very silly question I've always wondered about and that I now have the rare chance to ask someone with some expertise: Do submarines mostly roam about or do they tend to stay relatively quiet/idle? I always imagined submarines constantly moving about but at the same time it feels like a waste of fuel.
I wonder what the fuel difference is between fighting the currents and generating electricity while staying in the same area VS just moving around
The main thing is that you need to be moving at least a few knots in order for your control surfaces (rudder, forward planes, stern planes) to work.
Re: Royal Navy says quantum navigation test a success
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a link for that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Ant...
LISA: Laser Interferometer Space Antenna: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Ant... : > LISA would be the first dedicated space-based gravitational-wave observatory. It aims to measure gravitational waves directly by using laser interferometry. The LISA concept has a constellation of three spacecraft arranged in an equilateral triangle with sides 2.5 million kilometres long, flying along an Eart…
Further notes regarding Superfluid Quantum Gravity (instead of dark energy): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36258299
Re: Royal Navy says quantum navigation test a success
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
The battlefield is nothing like StarCraft though. StarCraft gives you real time control and visibility of every soldier and every enemy within the view range of any of your units. That has approximately no overlap with how command works in real militaries.
The battlefield is nothing like StarCraft? Think of SC as a top down model for how a real battlefield map can be. Just give each actor more realistic traits. So no strange Protoss or Zerg creatures! Perhaps base it on a more probabilistic model that treats each contact more as an uncertainty, like it would be under the fog of war. Suddenly you've got a viable model to use on real tactical maps, that is strikingly sim…
Arma 3 might be somewhat realistic, but that has nothing to do with what I’m saying about Warcraft 3. I’m saying the level of micromanagement and perfect information in W3 is completely unlike how actual battlefields can be managed.
AI that is good at W3 manages every individual unit’s actions and it does that based on a map that magically reveals enemies when you get close. Nothing like that would ever work IRL.
Re: Royal Navy says quantum navigation test a success
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this the method used by the sub in Hunt for Red October? Or did they also use a gyroscopic and look for changes in the gravitational vector, not just its magnitude?
I haven't read the book, but in the film the problem was the Red October was using the caterpillar-drive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamic_drive (and not a propeller/impeller) but a chance detection by Dallas' sonar along with the ingenuity of Dallas' sonar operator, who figured out how to detect and track Sean Connery's boat. Nothing to do with gravity or gyroscopes at all.
Yes, but Red October had some super accurate underwater gravity map of some kind that allowed them to navigate at speed through areas Dallas couldn't follow IIRC.