▲ 221 ▼ The ‘Sophisticated’ Bug OpenAI Found in Its Conference Room Can Be Yours for $13.99 (gizmodo.com) submitted 3 weeks ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world 61 comments fedilink hide all child comments The Seeed Studio XIAO ESP32-S3 Sense is for tinkerers, not super-spies.
[+] Buffalox@lemmy.world -8 points 3 weeks ago (16 children) Motionsensors permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (15 children) Do you mean the Soli radar? That ended up in what, 2-3 phone models altogether? Most phones do not have motion sensors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [+] Buffalox@lemmy.world -6 points 3 weeks ago* (14 children) No literally a common motion sensor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_sensor Quantum sensors have applications in a wide variety of fields including microscopy, positioning systems, communication technology, electric and magnetic field sensors. One of these are the perfectly common motion sensor that detects if you move your phone, which is based on quantum phenomenon, like the phase shift between photons send in different directions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 14 points 3 weeks ago (13 children) None of the current phone IMUs utilise quantum phenomena for measurement. They're MEMS/FOG/RLG systems. Quantum IMUs are the size that requires rack mounting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (9 children) OK but still the GPS using timing based on an atomic clock in space is absolutely sophisticated, and that is in even the cheapest smartphones today. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (8 children) Your claim was quantum phenomena utilisation in phone sensors. Let's stop moving the goalposts please. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children) I'm just tiring of the negativity here, so this is my last response in this thread. https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics https://science.epochsandechoes.com/7-mind-blowing-ways-your-smartphone-secretly-uses-quantum-physics-to-power-everyday-features-beac4d922130 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) Read your own links! First link: "But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet" The title was a question. The answer the article you linked gave was "it doesn't use quantum." The second link was describing regular effects as having quantum origins. Which is everything! Everything everywhere has a basis in quantum mechanics. "Radio waves are photons, and their behavior is described by quantum electrodynamics. " Yes, underpinning the entire universe is quantum mechanics. The light from a campfire is photons. No one would write an article saying, "Cavemen used a sophisticated quantum light source." Your claim was that smartphone motion sensors were quantum. You linked to Wikipedia about quantum sensors which did not say anything about phone sensors. Apple and all phone manufacturers say they use mems motion sensors. You were wrong. Get over yourself. And read the links you provide as proof. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) First link: “But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet” I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Sorry I didn't care to read the rest, because you started off with such nonsense. This is also in the text: Also, your smartphone contains a digital camera with a CCD-sensor. This sensor is based on the photoelectric effect – which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Can you really not see that you are wrong? Or is it THAT hard to say "ah damn, got that wrong"? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Yet you linked the article that made that statement and then refuted it! Quote from the article you linked: https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics Where it gives an example of how your phone uses quantum mechanics. which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, Yes a photon. Light is photons. The light from a caveman fire is photons. I already explained that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip -4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) I mean everything electric is a quantum sensor not to defend anything edit: further g sensors and accelerometers implemented by piezoelectricity are quantum sensors. They just use materials that make the sensing easy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) If the device doesn't use quantum effects directly, it isn't a quantum sensor. Otherwise words have no meaning and textbooks would call 1860's steam engines electric quantum engines because materials are held together with electric effects and atoms have quantum properties. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago Well everything uses quantum effects directly at least the highs field like you said. Your definition is therefore bad. But the examples do use gravitons because they measure gravity the same a camera uses photons to measure light, which are both quants and are measured in "easy" ways. Just because you are posh about it and try to define it as only the large hardron collider permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (15 children) Do you mean the Soli radar? That ended up in what, 2-3 phone models altogether? Most phones do not have motion sensors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [+] Buffalox@lemmy.world -6 points 3 weeks ago* (14 children) No literally a common motion sensor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_sensor Quantum sensors have applications in a wide variety of fields including microscopy, positioning systems, communication technology, electric and magnetic field sensors. One of these are the perfectly common motion sensor that detects if you move your phone, which is based on quantum phenomenon, like the phase shift between photons send in different directions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 14 points 3 weeks ago (13 children) None of the current phone IMUs utilise quantum phenomena for measurement. They're MEMS/FOG/RLG systems. Quantum IMUs are the size that requires rack mounting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (9 children) OK but still the GPS using timing based on an atomic clock in space is absolutely sophisticated, and that is in even the cheapest smartphones today. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (8 children) Your claim was quantum phenomena utilisation in phone sensors. Let's stop moving the goalposts please. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children) I'm just tiring of the negativity here, so this is my last response in this thread. https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics https://science.epochsandechoes.com/7-mind-blowing-ways-your-smartphone-secretly-uses-quantum-physics-to-power-everyday-features-beac4d922130 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) Read your own links! First link: "But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet" The title was a question. The answer the article you linked gave was "it doesn't use quantum." The second link was describing regular effects as having quantum origins. Which is everything! Everything everywhere has a basis in quantum mechanics. "Radio waves are photons, and their behavior is described by quantum electrodynamics. " Yes, underpinning the entire universe is quantum mechanics. The light from a campfire is photons. No one would write an article saying, "Cavemen used a sophisticated quantum light source." Your claim was that smartphone motion sensors were quantum. You linked to Wikipedia about quantum sensors which did not say anything about phone sensors. Apple and all phone manufacturers say they use mems motion sensors. You were wrong. Get over yourself. And read the links you provide as proof. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) First link: “But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet” I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Sorry I didn't care to read the rest, because you started off with such nonsense. This is also in the text: Also, your smartphone contains a digital camera with a CCD-sensor. This sensor is based on the photoelectric effect – which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Can you really not see that you are wrong? Or is it THAT hard to say "ah damn, got that wrong"? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Yet you linked the article that made that statement and then refuted it! Quote from the article you linked: https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics Where it gives an example of how your phone uses quantum mechanics. which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, Yes a photon. Light is photons. The light from a caveman fire is photons. I already explained that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip -4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) I mean everything electric is a quantum sensor not to defend anything edit: further g sensors and accelerometers implemented by piezoelectricity are quantum sensors. They just use materials that make the sensing easy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) If the device doesn't use quantum effects directly, it isn't a quantum sensor. Otherwise words have no meaning and textbooks would call 1860's steam engines electric quantum engines because materials are held together with electric effects and atoms have quantum properties. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago Well everything uses quantum effects directly at least the highs field like you said. Your definition is therefore bad. But the examples do use gravitons because they measure gravity the same a camera uses photons to measure light, which are both quants and are measured in "easy" ways. Just because you are posh about it and try to define it as only the large hardron collider permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Buffalox@lemmy.world -6 points 3 weeks ago* (14 children) No literally a common motion sensor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_sensor Quantum sensors have applications in a wide variety of fields including microscopy, positioning systems, communication technology, electric and magnetic field sensors. One of these are the perfectly common motion sensor that detects if you move your phone, which is based on quantum phenomenon, like the phase shift between photons send in different directions. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 14 points 3 weeks ago (13 children) None of the current phone IMUs utilise quantum phenomena for measurement. They're MEMS/FOG/RLG systems. Quantum IMUs are the size that requires rack mounting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (9 children) OK but still the GPS using timing based on an atomic clock in space is absolutely sophisticated, and that is in even the cheapest smartphones today. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (8 children) Your claim was quantum phenomena utilisation in phone sensors. Let's stop moving the goalposts please. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children) I'm just tiring of the negativity here, so this is my last response in this thread. https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics https://science.epochsandechoes.com/7-mind-blowing-ways-your-smartphone-secretly-uses-quantum-physics-to-power-everyday-features-beac4d922130 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) Read your own links! First link: "But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet" The title was a question. The answer the article you linked gave was "it doesn't use quantum." The second link was describing regular effects as having quantum origins. Which is everything! Everything everywhere has a basis in quantum mechanics. "Radio waves are photons, and their behavior is described by quantum electrodynamics. " Yes, underpinning the entire universe is quantum mechanics. The light from a campfire is photons. No one would write an article saying, "Cavemen used a sophisticated quantum light source." Your claim was that smartphone motion sensors were quantum. You linked to Wikipedia about quantum sensors which did not say anything about phone sensors. Apple and all phone manufacturers say they use mems motion sensors. You were wrong. Get over yourself. And read the links you provide as proof. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) First link: “But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet” I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Sorry I didn't care to read the rest, because you started off with such nonsense. This is also in the text: Also, your smartphone contains a digital camera with a CCD-sensor. This sensor is based on the photoelectric effect – which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Can you really not see that you are wrong? Or is it THAT hard to say "ah damn, got that wrong"? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Yet you linked the article that made that statement and then refuted it! Quote from the article you linked: https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics Where it gives an example of how your phone uses quantum mechanics. which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, Yes a photon. Light is photons. The light from a caveman fire is photons. I already explained that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip -4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) I mean everything electric is a quantum sensor not to defend anything edit: further g sensors and accelerometers implemented by piezoelectricity are quantum sensors. They just use materials that make the sensing easy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) If the device doesn't use quantum effects directly, it isn't a quantum sensor. Otherwise words have no meaning and textbooks would call 1860's steam engines electric quantum engines because materials are held together with electric effects and atoms have quantum properties. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago Well everything uses quantum effects directly at least the highs field like you said. Your definition is therefore bad. But the examples do use gravitons because they measure gravity the same a camera uses photons to measure light, which are both quants and are measured in "easy" ways. Just because you are posh about it and try to define it as only the large hardron collider permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fonix232@fedia.io 14 points 3 weeks ago (13 children) None of the current phone IMUs utilise quantum phenomena for measurement. They're MEMS/FOG/RLG systems. Quantum IMUs are the size that requires rack mounting. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (9 children) OK but still the GPS using timing based on an atomic clock in space is absolutely sophisticated, and that is in even the cheapest smartphones today. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (8 children) Your claim was quantum phenomena utilisation in phone sensors. Let's stop moving the goalposts please. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children) I'm just tiring of the negativity here, so this is my last response in this thread. https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics https://science.epochsandechoes.com/7-mind-blowing-ways-your-smartphone-secretly-uses-quantum-physics-to-power-everyday-features-beac4d922130 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) Read your own links! First link: "But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet" The title was a question. The answer the article you linked gave was "it doesn't use quantum." The second link was describing regular effects as having quantum origins. Which is everything! Everything everywhere has a basis in quantum mechanics. "Radio waves are photons, and their behavior is described by quantum electrodynamics. " Yes, underpinning the entire universe is quantum mechanics. The light from a campfire is photons. No one would write an article saying, "Cavemen used a sophisticated quantum light source." Your claim was that smartphone motion sensors were quantum. You linked to Wikipedia about quantum sensors which did not say anything about phone sensors. Apple and all phone manufacturers say they use mems motion sensors. You were wrong. Get over yourself. And read the links you provide as proof. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) First link: “But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet” I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Sorry I didn't care to read the rest, because you started off with such nonsense. This is also in the text: Also, your smartphone contains a digital camera with a CCD-sensor. This sensor is based on the photoelectric effect – which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Can you really not see that you are wrong? Or is it THAT hard to say "ah damn, got that wrong"? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Yet you linked the article that made that statement and then refuted it! Quote from the article you linked: https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics Where it gives an example of how your phone uses quantum mechanics. which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, Yes a photon. Light is photons. The light from a caveman fire is photons. I already explained that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip -4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) I mean everything electric is a quantum sensor not to defend anything edit: further g sensors and accelerometers implemented by piezoelectricity are quantum sensors. They just use materials that make the sensing easy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) If the device doesn't use quantum effects directly, it isn't a quantum sensor. Otherwise words have no meaning and textbooks would call 1860's steam engines electric quantum engines because materials are held together with electric effects and atoms have quantum properties. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago Well everything uses quantum effects directly at least the highs field like you said. Your definition is therefore bad. But the examples do use gravitons because they measure gravity the same a camera uses photons to measure light, which are both quants and are measured in "easy" ways. Just because you are posh about it and try to define it as only the large hardron collider permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (9 children) OK but still the GPS using timing based on an atomic clock in space is absolutely sophisticated, and that is in even the cheapest smartphones today. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (8 children) Your claim was quantum phenomena utilisation in phone sensors. Let's stop moving the goalposts please. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children) I'm just tiring of the negativity here, so this is my last response in this thread. https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics https://science.epochsandechoes.com/7-mind-blowing-ways-your-smartphone-secretly-uses-quantum-physics-to-power-everyday-features-beac4d922130 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) Read your own links! First link: "But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet" The title was a question. The answer the article you linked gave was "it doesn't use quantum." The second link was describing regular effects as having quantum origins. Which is everything! Everything everywhere has a basis in quantum mechanics. "Radio waves are photons, and their behavior is described by quantum electrodynamics. " Yes, underpinning the entire universe is quantum mechanics. The light from a campfire is photons. No one would write an article saying, "Cavemen used a sophisticated quantum light source." Your claim was that smartphone motion sensors were quantum. You linked to Wikipedia about quantum sensors which did not say anything about phone sensors. Apple and all phone manufacturers say they use mems motion sensors. You were wrong. Get over yourself. And read the links you provide as proof. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) First link: “But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet” I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Sorry I didn't care to read the rest, because you started off with such nonsense. This is also in the text: Also, your smartphone contains a digital camera with a CCD-sensor. This sensor is based on the photoelectric effect – which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Can you really not see that you are wrong? Or is it THAT hard to say "ah damn, got that wrong"? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Yet you linked the article that made that statement and then refuted it! Quote from the article you linked: https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics Where it gives an example of how your phone uses quantum mechanics. which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, Yes a photon. Light is photons. The light from a caveman fire is photons. I already explained that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fonix232@fedia.io 2 points 3 weeks ago (8 children) Your claim was quantum phenomena utilisation in phone sensors. Let's stop moving the goalposts please. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children) I'm just tiring of the negativity here, so this is my last response in this thread. https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics https://science.epochsandechoes.com/7-mind-blowing-ways-your-smartphone-secretly-uses-quantum-physics-to-power-everyday-features-beac4d922130 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) Read your own links! First link: "But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet" The title was a question. The answer the article you linked gave was "it doesn't use quantum." The second link was describing regular effects as having quantum origins. Which is everything! Everything everywhere has a basis in quantum mechanics. "Radio waves are photons, and their behavior is described by quantum electrodynamics. " Yes, underpinning the entire universe is quantum mechanics. The light from a campfire is photons. No one would write an article saying, "Cavemen used a sophisticated quantum light source." Your claim was that smartphone motion sensors were quantum. You linked to Wikipedia about quantum sensors which did not say anything about phone sensors. Apple and all phone manufacturers say they use mems motion sensors. You were wrong. Get over yourself. And read the links you provide as proof. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) First link: “But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet” I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Sorry I didn't care to read the rest, because you started off with such nonsense. This is also in the text: Also, your smartphone contains a digital camera with a CCD-sensor. This sensor is based on the photoelectric effect – which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Can you really not see that you are wrong? Or is it THAT hard to say "ah damn, got that wrong"? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Yet you linked the article that made that statement and then refuted it! Quote from the article you linked: https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics Where it gives an example of how your phone uses quantum mechanics. which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, Yes a photon. Light is photons. The light from a caveman fire is photons. I already explained that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (7 children) I'm just tiring of the negativity here, so this is my last response in this thread. https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics https://science.epochsandechoes.com/7-mind-blowing-ways-your-smartphone-secretly-uses-quantum-physics-to-power-everyday-features-beac4d922130 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) Read your own links! First link: "But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet" The title was a question. The answer the article you linked gave was "it doesn't use quantum." The second link was describing regular effects as having quantum origins. Which is everything! Everything everywhere has a basis in quantum mechanics. "Radio waves are photons, and their behavior is described by quantum electrodynamics. " Yes, underpinning the entire universe is quantum mechanics. The light from a campfire is photons. No one would write an article saying, "Cavemen used a sophisticated quantum light source." Your claim was that smartphone motion sensors were quantum. You linked to Wikipedia about quantum sensors which did not say anything about phone sensors. Apple and all phone manufacturers say they use mems motion sensors. You were wrong. Get over yourself. And read the links you provide as proof. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) First link: “But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet” I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Sorry I didn't care to read the rest, because you started off with such nonsense. This is also in the text: Also, your smartphone contains a digital camera with a CCD-sensor. This sensor is based on the photoelectric effect – which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Can you really not see that you are wrong? Or is it THAT hard to say "ah damn, got that wrong"? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Yet you linked the article that made that statement and then refuted it! Quote from the article you linked: https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics Where it gives an example of how your phone uses quantum mechanics. which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, Yes a photon. Light is photons. The light from a caveman fire is photons. I already explained that. permalink fedilink source parent [–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago (3 children) Read your own links! First link: "But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet" The title was a question. The answer the article you linked gave was "it doesn't use quantum." The second link was describing regular effects as having quantum origins. Which is everything! Everything everywhere has a basis in quantum mechanics. "Radio waves are photons, and their behavior is described by quantum electrodynamics. " Yes, underpinning the entire universe is quantum mechanics. The light from a campfire is photons. No one would write an article saying, "Cavemen used a sophisticated quantum light source." Your claim was that smartphone motion sensors were quantum. You linked to Wikipedia about quantum sensors which did not say anything about phone sensors. Apple and all phone manufacturers say they use mems motion sensors. You were wrong. Get over yourself. And read the links you provide as proof. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) First link: “But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet” I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Sorry I didn't care to read the rest, because you started off with such nonsense. This is also in the text: Also, your smartphone contains a digital camera with a CCD-sensor. This sensor is based on the photoelectric effect – which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Can you really not see that you are wrong? Or is it THAT hard to say "ah damn, got that wrong"? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Yet you linked the article that made that statement and then refuted it! Quote from the article you linked: https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics Where it gives an example of how your phone uses quantum mechanics. which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, Yes a photon. Light is photons. The light from a caveman fire is photons. I already explained that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago* (2 children) First link: “But your smartphone is not a quantum computer, yet” I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Sorry I didn't care to read the rest, because you started off with such nonsense. This is also in the text: Also, your smartphone contains a digital camera with a CCD-sensor. This sensor is based on the photoelectric effect – which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Can you really not see that you are wrong? Or is it THAT hard to say "ah damn, got that wrong"? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Yet you linked the article that made that statement and then refuted it! Quote from the article you linked: https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics Where it gives an example of how your phone uses quantum mechanics. which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, Yes a photon. Light is photons. The light from a caveman fire is photons. I already explained that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago Can you really not see that you are wrong? Or is it THAT hard to say "ah damn, got that wrong"? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 1 point 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) I never claimed that it was, quantum computers are still experimental. Yet you linked the article that made that statement and then refuted it! Quote from the article you linked: https://qt.eu/applications/how-your-smartphone-uses-quantum-mechanics Where it gives an example of how your phone uses quantum mechanics. which was explained by Albert Einstein by introducing quanta of light, Yes a photon. Light is photons. The light from a caveman fire is photons. I already explained that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 point 3 weeks ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] fonix232@fedia.io 4 points 3 weeks ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip -4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children) I mean everything electric is a quantum sensor not to defend anything edit: further g sensors and accelerometers implemented by piezoelectricity are quantum sensors. They just use materials that make the sensing easy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) If the device doesn't use quantum effects directly, it isn't a quantum sensor. Otherwise words have no meaning and textbooks would call 1860's steam engines electric quantum engines because materials are held together with electric effects and atoms have quantum properties. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago Well everything uses quantum effects directly at least the highs field like you said. Your definition is therefore bad. But the examples do use gravitons because they measure gravity the same a camera uses photons to measure light, which are both quants and are measured in "easy" ways. Just because you are posh about it and try to define it as only the large hardron collider permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child) If the device doesn't use quantum effects directly, it isn't a quantum sensor. Otherwise words have no meaning and textbooks would call 1860's steam engines electric quantum engines because materials are held together with electric effects and atoms have quantum properties. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago Well everything uses quantum effects directly at least the highs field like you said. Your definition is therefore bad. But the examples do use gravitons because they measure gravity the same a camera uses photons to measure light, which are both quants and are measured in "easy" ways. Just because you are posh about it and try to define it as only the large hardron collider permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 weeks ago Well everything uses quantum effects directly at least the highs field like you said. Your definition is therefore bad. But the examples do use gravitons because they measure gravity the same a camera uses photons to measure light, which are both quants and are measured in "easy" ways. Just because you are posh about it and try to define it as only the large hardron collider permalink fedilink source parent