By using quantum sensing instead of traditional lenses and a CMOS camera, and then running reconstruction algorithms over time on the input, it's possible to get 20x the range, 1000x the processing speed, and sub-diffraction images. It also reduces size and cost from Hubble scale to a big cubesat size.
>>64752266how it works>https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.07262>the companyhttps://diffraqtion.com/techThey announced today and the first sat launches will be in 2028. This is to sensors as SpaceX was to lift desu
>>64752266Huh, can't tell from the articles linked the specifics or see any concrete examples but still looks like interesting tech. And in the future but not so radically that it's "someday maybe", couple of years out isn't bad. Thanks for the heads up anon.
>>64752266>spew out random buzzwords>add quantum for sci fi effect>think people are going to believe youlmao
>>64752365>see the word quantum>immediately dismissi'm tired of chinkshills too but this has some solid science behind it. the potential impact is pretty impressive.
>>64752365On the one hand I can see where you're coming from, and the press release stuff is a little buzzy. On the other hand the arxiv paper is interesting and I've "seen" first hand an approach that is legit and has echoes of this in a different domain, which is using WiFi+comp+ai to construct 3D imagery of a room and the people going around in it, down to figuring out some of what they're typing on a keyboard. Blew my mind when I first encountered the research but it's real. And unlike most bullshit artists they're promising specific real products in a very short timespan. Any potential customers for this are serious players who would want to see real hardware and 2 years out isn't far. So I'm more curious then I'd normally be, though OP as usual is being a big faggot and overstating things more than they themselves do. The news releases have hedging around "up to..." which doesn't tell us what the average would be or what conditions it needs or whatever. Clearly asterisks there. And it sounds like this is information inference about specific (though interesting) data and not a full replacement for optical, like SAR usage. So it could be very cool but isn't "SpaceX to lift" which is shaping to be a straight superset.
>>64752273>lead writter had their google scholer deletedEither they are very full of shit or so not full of shit Raytheon told them to pull it.
>>64752365If you passed university physics you don't need convincing. Spam your nukes-are-fake schizo slop to someone stupid enough not to laugh at you
>>64752266>then running reconstruction algorithmsliterally worthless for intelligence gatheringyou want real information, not reconstructions
>>64752412Depends a lot on how good the reconstruction is, remember even recon sats used image compression for decades due to bandwidth limits.
>>64752266Reminds me of pic related, but it's all bullshit...right?
>>64752266>quantum thingMay we see proof it works before we commit to anything?>n-no this is just futu-That's what I thought.
>>64752273Well, well, well...wouldn't you know it, one of our friends at Raytheon that wrote this is Zachary fucking Dutton. I wonder where I've heard that name before...What is he still doing writing papers? He's a VP at Raytheon now.
>>64752468My brother in Christ...I don't think it's bullshit. Zachary Dutton is as legit as they come, and has about the glowiest of glownigger scientific backgrounds. He's a VP at Raytheon. He's worked for them for over 20 years.
>>64752266>look inside>it's an AI image resizerLol.
Oh hell I didnt even read any of the thread or links.Amazing.A fucking AI resizer.Lmao.
>>64752393>On the other hand the arxiv paper is interestingSo can you tell us what "quantum sensing" means?
>>64752522Using quantum entanglement to extract more information from detected particles, photons in this case.
>>64752428AI upscaling/reconstruction makes assumptions and creates information that didn't exist and there's no way of knowing how accurate it is. You can't just generate information from nothing and assume it reflects reality.Fucking AI fags
>>64752480Promises cost nothing, working proof costs something.
>>64752540While I understand what you are saying, this isn't some handwavey bullshit written by a team of Chinks at some Chang Technical Institute. Zachary Dutton is as legitimate as a defense scientist can be. Whatever he's been doing for Raytheon for 20+ years was good enough to earn him a VP position within the company.
>>64752266>sub-diffractionSo they're literally claiming to violate the known laws of physics. Seems legit.
>>64752616It seems to be glownigger DLSS. What I want to know is what the camera sensor is made of? They are very, very vague in all the articles I can find on this, but most of the Diffraction personnel have backgrounds in EE with a focus on photonic computing, and all of Dutton's early work has shitloads of applications in photonic computing. Dutton also has citations with pic related Jeet (Saikat Guha) when he was with the University of Arizona. U of A also does lots of parallel work in metasurface lensing for satellite imaging. What I do find interesting is that this appears to be a retrofit type system for existing satellite imaging rigs.
>>64752645>Pic related JeetThey have been at this for a while it seems. There are citations for similar work going back to 2016.
>>64752645>just use the hallucination machine for your ISR bro it just works>you just put the AI in your satellite and tell it to make the pictures better and it just does it bro
>>64752266implessive
>>64752266>quantum sensing>reconstruction algorithmsAt some point, that's just guessing what it is and filling in the holes. For normal things, that's fine, but if it's looking at something new, which is likely for a recon satellite, won't it be more likely to tell you what it assumes it is?
>>64752685Considering DARPA, the University of Arizona, and Raytheon having been giving them money steadily for the past decade, it must do something. Their first orbital demo is scheduled to launch in 2 years apparently. Even their project patch apes the NRO.https://diffraqtion.com/galileo
>>64752266>reconstruction algorithmsSo are you actually seeing the target or are you hallucinating the image?
>>64752716Funny you should mention thathttps://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=W4pOb5cAAAAJ&sortby=pubdate&citation_for_view=W4pOb5cAAAAJ:OU6Ihb5iCvQC
